Bovine TB

Anthony Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle have been infected with bovine TB in each of the last three years in (a) Devon, (b) Cornwall, (c) Somerset and (d) Dorset; and how many cattle were destroyed during the foot and mouth epidemic in each county.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 21 June 2005
	If an animal reacts positively to the skin test it is generally considered to have bovine TB. However, it is not always possible to confirm infection in any particular animal by post-mortem examination at the slaughterhouse, or by culturing Mycobacterium bovis in the laboratory. This is because in the early stages of the disease, it is not always possible to see lesions with the naked eye, and, due to the fastidious nature of the organism, it is not possible to culture from samples in every case.
	Therefore, the number of cattle slaughtered under bovine TB control measures in the four counties requested in the last three years is provided as follows:
	
		
			  2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 Devon 3,022 3,657 4,674 
			 Cornwall 2,917 2,414 2,351 
			 Somerset 9,07 1,033 928 
			 Dorset 3,83 399 408 
		
	
	The number of cattle destroyed as a result of foot and mouth in each of the counties is as follows:
	
		
			  
		
		
			 Devon 3,267 
			 Cornwall 3,310 
			 Somerset 992 
			 Dorset 445 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. The number of cattle slaughtered under bovine TB control measures comprises the number of reactors to the TB test and those cattle that have been in direct contact.
	2. TB data downloaded from the State Veterinary Service database on 19 May 2005.
	3. All data are provisional and subject to change as more data become available.

Bovine TB

Anthony Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms in the South West have been affected by bovine TB in each of the last three years; how many cattle in England have been slaughtered due to bovine TB in each year; how much was paid by the Government to farmers in (a) Devon, (b) Cornwall, (c) Somerset and (d) Dorset in compensation for bovine TB in each of the last three years; what steps she has taken to eradicate TB in cattle; and what steps she is proposing to take.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 22 June 2005
	The information requested is as follows:
	Number of farms affected by TB and the cattle slaughtered
	The number of holdings affected by bovine TB breakdowns in each of the last three years, as well as the number of cattle slaughtered under TB control measures in England between 2001 and 2004 are detailed in the following tables.
	
		Table 1: Number of holdings affected by TB incident by county
		
			  Number of farm holdings Number of herds under movement restrictions(1) 
			 County 2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 Devon 630 856 915 648 912 981 
			 Cornwall 540 619 589 560 680 638 
			 Somerset 203 279 253 213 294 262 
			 Dorset 102 131 107 105 140 115 
		
	
	(1) Data downloaded from the State Veterinary Service database on 22 June 2005. All data provisional and subject to change as more data become available.
	
		Table 2: Cattle slaughtered in England
		
			 Year(2) Cattle slaughtered 2 
		
		
			 2001(4) 4,284 
			 2002(4) 17,851 
			 2003 17,096 
			 2004 16,955 
		
	
	(2) TB Reactors plus Direct Contacts
	(3) Data downloaded from State Veterinary Service database on 19 May 2005. All data provisional and subject to change as more data become available.
	(4) In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the foot and mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak. When testing resumed in 2002, resources were concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests which would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Also the proportion of high risk herds tested immediately after the FMD outbreak was greater than that prior to the outbreak. As a result, data for 2001 and 2002 are not comparable with other years.
	Compensation
	The amount of compensation for Bovine TB paid to farmers in the four counties is not collected/available in the format requested, and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
	The amount of compensation paid in Great Britain over the last three years is detailed in the following table.
	
		Table 3: Compensation paid in Great Britain £ million
		
			 Financial year Expenditure 
		
		
			 2001–02 9.2 
			 2002–03 31.9 
			 2003–04 34.4 
			 2004–05 (5)35.0 
		
	
	(5) Forecast.
	Action to control TB
	The Government is committed to finding the best way to combat bovine TB, backed by available scientific evidence and taking account of all interested parties, including the taxpayer. We published our 10-year strategy for the control of bovine TB in March. This places emphasis on keeping clean areas clean and achieving a sustained and steady reduction of TB in hotspot areas. Specific disease control policies will be tailored to reflect the control of bovine TB in March. This places emphasis on keeping clean areas clean and achieving a sustained and steady reduction of TB in hotspot areas. Specific disease control policies will be tailored to reflect the regional variation in disease and risk, and adjusted to make best use of emerging scientific findings.
	We are prepared to cull badgers to control bovine TB if evidence shows it is cost-effective, practicable and sustainable. The strategic framework sets out a process for decision-making on badger culling. However, vaccination for cattle or badgers is still a long-term goal and we have recently approved the first field trial of a TB vaccine for badgers and a new study by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to prepare for similar field trials in cattle.

Fly Tipping

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many reported incidents of fly-tipping there were in each (a) local authority and (b) region in the last period for which figures are available; and what costs were incurred in removing fly-tipped waste.

Ben Bradshaw: The number of reported incidents of fly-tipping and the cost of clearance and disposal reported between April 2004 and March 2005 are given by (a) waste collection authority and (b) region in tables made available in the Library of the House.
	This data is from the Flycapture database, which records fly-tipping incidents dealt with by waste collection authorities and the Environment Agency, The figures are likely to be an underestimate and should increase as authorities improve their data collection and reporting performance.

Landfill Sites

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many (a) complaints, (b) court actions and (c) fines against landfill sites for problems related to (i) odours, (ii) water pollutions, (iii) air pollution and (iv) human health impact there were in each year since May 1997, broken down by region.

Ben Bradshaw: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 7 September 2004, Official Report, column 944W which outline the limitations when producing this data. The following sets of data update the figures previously provided.
	Complaints
	Tables 1, 2 and 3 give information of incidents that were reported to the Environment Agency and were recorded on the National Incident Recording System (NIRS). It is important to note that NIRS records incidents and not complaints.
	
		Table 1: Incidents where the pollutant was recorded as landfill odour (categories 1–3)
		
			 Region July 2004 to April 2005 
		
		
			 Anglian 51 
			 Midlands 32 
			 North East 42 
			 North West 55 
			 Southern 29 
			 South West 29 
			 Thames 55 
			 EA Wales 50 
		
	
	
		Table 2: Incidents which had impact to water (categories 1–3)
		
			 Region July 2004 to April 2005 
		
		
			 Anglian 1 
			 Midlands 4 
			 North East 9 
			 North West 2 
			 Southern 2 
			 South west 5 
			 Thames 2 
			 EA Wales 3 
		
	
	
		Table 3: Incidents which had impact to air (categories 1–3)
		
			 Region July 2004 to April 2005 
		
		
			 Anglian 45 
			 Midlands 42 
			 North East 58 
			 North West 81 
			 Southern 21 
			 South West 21 
			 Thames 57 
			 EA Wales 24 
		
	
	The NIRS system has no designated means of recording incidents in terms of their impact on human health. Specific and accurate data concerning complaints against landfill sites for problems related to human health can not therefore be derived from NIRS.
	Court actions and fines
	Information concerning (b) court actions and (c) fines are kept separately, on the National Enforcement Database. The following prosecutions were taken between 1 July 2004 and 31 May 2004.
	
		Updated figures 1 July 2004 to 31 May 2005 WRA 1991 s.85(1)
		
			  Cases Fines 
		
		
			 Anglian — — 
			 Midlands — — 
			 NE — — 
			 NW — — 
			 Southern — — 
			 SW 1 1 
			 Thames — — 
			 Wales — — 
		
	
	
		EPA 1990 s.33(1)(c)
		
			  Cases Fines 
		
		
			 Anglian — — 
			 Midlands 2 2 
			 NE — — 
			 NW — — 
			 Southern — — 
			 SW — — 
			 Thames — — 
			 Wales — — 
		
	
	
		EPA 1990 s.33(6)
		
			  Cases Fines 
		
		
			 Anglian — — 
			 Midlands 2 2 
			 NE — — 
			 NW 1 1 
			 Southern — — 
			 SW — — 
			 Thames — — 
			 Wales — —

Munitions/Fireworks Production (Land Contamination)

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned on the duration of damage to (a) soil and (b) ground water on land that was used for (i) munitions production and (ii) fireworks production; and if she will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: The Environment Agency has published two documents regarding the potential for contamination of land at former explosives manufacturing sites (including fireworks). Both deal with the characteristics of the potential contaminants at such sites. This includes their solubility and biodegradability which can be used to indicate the likelihood of them persisting at the site and the methods required to investigate and remediate such contamination.
	These reports are:
	R&D Technical Report P5–042/TR/03—Land Contamination: Technical Guidance on Special Sites: Explosives Manufacturing & Processing Sites.
	Project Record P5–036/01—Collation of Toxicological Data and Development of Guideline Values for Explosive Substances, Collation of Physicochemical data.
	This second document is the first step in the production of Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) Soil Guideline Values.
	The agency has also produced general guidance on the assessment of natural attenuation (the dispersion or breakdown) of contaminants in groundwater:
	R&D Publication 95—Guidance on the Assessment and Monitoring of Natural Attenuation of Contaminants in Groundwater.
	Defra has two publications in its "Industry Profiles" series on munitions and firework production. This series provides information on the processes, materials and waste associated with individual industries, with respect to land contamination:
	Chemical Works: explosives, propellents and pyrotechnics manufacturing works;
	Engineering Works: mechanical engineering and ordnance works.

Housing

Lynne Jones: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes available for rent through (a) Birmingham city council and (b) registered social landlords in Birmingham have been (i) demolished and (ii) built in each of the last 10 years.

Yvette Cooper: The information is as follows.
	
		
			   Birmingham city council Registered social landlords(6) 
			  Demolitions(7) New Build/Acquisition(8) New Build 
		
		
			 1996–97 (9)— 32 573 
			 1997–98 (9)— 32 849 
			 1998–99 (9)— 43 814 
			 1999–2000 (9)— 58 497 
			 2000–01 694 16 481 
			 2001–02 1,239 36 455 
			 2002–03 1,310 70 532 
			 2003–04 857 14 788 
			 2004–05(10) 1,337 (9)— (9)— 
		
	
	(6) RSL new build completions data taken from Birmingham city council website "Development in Birmingham 2003–04".
	(7) Local authority demolitions data taken from city council's business plan statistical appendix—ODPM database.
	(8) New build/acquisition local authority data provided by Birmingham city council housing department
	(9) No data
	(10) 2004–05 demolition data taken from the draft HRA business plan, and is the planned demolitions figure, not outturn
	The Housing Corporation, the funding and regulatory body for registered social landlords (RSLs) sponsored by the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, only collects demolition data on a national level and therefore it is not possible to provide the information requested for RSL demolitions in the Birmingham area.

Housing

Vincent Cable: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what eligibility criteria will be used to determine access to the Homebuy Joint Shared Equity Loans with Mortgage Lenders scheme.

Yvette Cooper: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently consulting on the details of our proposals for a range of new HomeBuy products, as set out in the consultation document 'HomeBuy—Expanding the Opportunity to Own' (a copy of which is available from the Library of the House).
	Under our proposals the eligibility criteria for the public/private funded equity loans variant of HomeBuy will remain the same as under our proposals for Open Market HomeBuy. We will receive advice for Regional Housing Boards on eligibility. Subject to the outcome of the consultation exercise the programme will, as at present, be focussed on assisting key public sector workers such as teachers, nurses and police officers. Some social tenants and those on housing registers (ie those waiting for a council or housing association home to rent) may also be eligible.

Laptop Computers

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many laptop computers have been used by (a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) officials in his Department in each year since 1995; how many have been (i) lost and (ii) stolen in that period; what the cost was of the use of laptops in that period; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The number of laptop computers used by Ministers and special advisers since the creation of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 29 May 2002 is as follows:
	
		Number
		
			  Ministers Special advisers 
		
		
			 2002 2 2 
			 2003 2 2 
			 2004 2 2 
			 2005 2 2 
		
	
	The information requested on the use of laptop computers by officials, and associated costs, in each year since that date is not available centrally in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	Departmental records show the following numbers of lost or stolen laptop computers across the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister since 29 May 2002:
	
		
			  Lost Stolen 
			  Ministers Special advisers Officials Ministers Special advisers Officials 
		
		
			 2002–03 — — — — — 2 
			 2003–04 — — — — — 2 
			 2004–05 — — — — — 2 
			 2005–06 — — 2 — — (11)1 
		
	
	(11) Recovered

Lyons Review

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many full-time equivalent employees are employed in relation to the Lyons Review.

Phil Woolas: The Lyons Inquiry team comprises 11.9 full-time equivalent employees. The efficiency and relocation team, in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, works on both the implications for the Office of the Lyons relocation review as well as the Gershon review. The team has three full-time members of staff and they spend about a third of their time specifically on Lyons relocation review-related work. Other members of staff across the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, including in the regional development group, and in our non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies undertake specific work as necessary.

New Homes

David Drew: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new homes have been built by each local housing authority that has opted for (a) large scale voluntary transfer, (b) arm's length management organisation and (c) private finance initiative in each year since it did so.

Yvette Cooper: Most local housing authorities have not built any dwellings following large scale voluntary transfer, except those tabled as follows. Most social housing provision will have been through registered social landlords. Local housing authorities opting for arm length management organisation have reported no subsequent local authority house building. Local authorities with signed Housing Revenue Account private finance initiatives contracts have not reported any subsequent local authority house building.
	
		Local authorities reporting 'local authority' house building following large scale voluntary transfer (dwellings/year)
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 Chiltern  
			 1989–90 25 
			   
			 Cotswold(12)  
			 1997–98 17 
			 1998–99 17 
			 2000–01 20 
			 2002–03 4 
			 2003–04 10 
			   
			 East Lindsey  
			 1999–2000 1 
			   
			 Hambleton  
			 1996–97 16 
			   
			 Hertsmere  
			 1998–99 1 
			   
			 Kennet  
			 1999–2000 11 
			 2003–04 5 
			   
			 Mid Sussex  
			 1991–92 32 
			   
			 Ryedale  
			 1995–96 4 
			   
			 Sevenoaks(12)  
			 1989–90 102 
			 1990–91 18 
			 1991–92 18 
			 1992–93 6 
			   
			 South Shropshire  
			 1994–95 6 
			   
			 Vale of White Horse  
			 1995–96 9 
		
	
	(12) Numbers may include some registered social landlord dwellings due to misclassification.

Pensioner Home Improvements

David Drew: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that local authorities adopt appropriate practices for delivering home improvements for pensioners to meet their community safety objectives; and what discussions his Department has had with the Home Office on this subject.

Phil Woolas: Under the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance)(England and Wales) Order 2002 local authorities were given wide ranging new powers to provide financial assistance to home-owners and others to improve living accommodation. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's circular 05/2003 advised local authorities on how they could be used to align housing renewal policies with wider strategic objectives such as the reduction of crime and antisocial behaviour.
	Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on named agencies to do all they can to reasonably prevent crime and disorder in their area. The decisions and activities of local bodies and organisations can have an important impact on levels of crime and disorder in communities. In recognition of this, section 17 aims to place crime and disorder reduction at the heart of local decision-making and to give it a focus across the wide range of local services that influence and impact on community safety.
	Ministers and official in ODPM are in constant touch with colleagues in the Home Office to discuss these important strategic issues and how effective policies can best be delivered.

Chess

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of the case for chess to be recognised as a sport; and if she will make a statement.

Richard Caborn: The criteria that the sports councils use to decide whether an activity should be recognised as a sport are derived from their Royal Charters, and ultimately from the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. Legal advice has stated that chess does not fall within the meaning of the word "sport" for the purposes of the Royal Charter, or the meaning of "physical training and recreation" in the Act. Recognition of chess would therefore require amendments to the Act.
	Sport is now a devolved matter, so a change in the current position would require the unanimous support of both the Devolved Administrations (DAs) and the sports councils, before any progress could be made. It would be necessary to put a case to the DAs and the sports councils for legislative change that would include chess, and if necessary other "mind games", within the criteria for recognition as a sport. The case put forward must be able to convince them that chess provides the same benefits to the public, such as improved health and fitness, as recognised sports, in order to merit equal status and the financial support that comes with it.

Swimming Pools

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many swimming pools there have been in each London borough in each year since 1997.

Richard Caborn: The information requested is provided in the following table. The information includes swimming pools provided by public and private operators.
	
		
			   Of which: "x" built in 
			 London borough Total number of pools 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
		
		
			 Barking and Dagenham 8 1 — 1 — — — — — — 
			 Barnet 22 1 2 — 2 2 1 — 1 — 
			 Bexley 14 — — — 1 — — — 1 2 
			 Brent 8 — — — — — 1 — — — 
			 Bromley 28 — 2 — 3 2 1 — 1 — 
			 Camden 25 — 2 1 2 1 — — — — 
			 City of London 14 — — 2 — 3 1 1 — — 
			 Croydon 28 1 — 1 2 — 2 — 4 — 
			 Ealing 26 2 3 — 2 2 2 1 1 — 
			 Enfield 16 — 1 — 1 — 2 — — — 
			 Greenwich 16 — — 1 — — — — — — 
			 Hackney 5 — — — — — — 1 — — 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 18 — 1 — 1 1 4 2 — — 
			 Haringey 16 1 — — — — — — — — 
			 Harrow 11 2 1 — 1 — 1 — — — 
			 Havering 12 — — — — 2 — — 4 — 
			 Hillingdon 20 1 — 2 — 2 — — 1 — 
			 Hounslow 16 — — — — 1 — 1 — — 
			 Islington 13 — 1 — 1 2 1 — — — 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 16 — — 3 1 — 1 1 — — 
			 Kingston upon Thames 12 — 2 — 1 — 3 1 — — 
			 Lambeth 11 — 1 — 1 1 — — 1 — 
			 Lewisham 9 — — — — — — — 2 — 
			 Merton 14 — 1 2 — — 1 — — — 
			 Newham 10 — — — — 2 1 1 — — 
			 Redbridge 11 1 — 1 — 1 1 — — — 
			 Richmond 19 — — — — — — — 2 — 
			 Southwark 17 — 2 1 — — 1 — 1 — 
			 Sutton 12 — — — — 1 — — — — 
			 Tower Hamlets 11 1 — — 1 1 1 — — — 
			 Waltham Forest 15 — — — 1 1 3 — — — 
			 Wandsworth 20 — — — — 1 1 — 1 — 
			 Westminster 40 — 1 — 2 4 3 — 2 1

Container Traffic

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his most recent estimate is of the tonnage of container traffic which entered the UK through (a) Harwich, (b) Felixstowe and (c) London which went to destinations north of the M62 by lorry.

Stephen Ladyman: Separate information is not available for individual ports. However, it is estimated that in 2003 about 650,000 tonnes of container traffic entered the UK by lorry through ports in Essex, Greater London or Suffolk and had a final destination north of the M62 1 .
	1 Including Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West Yorkshire Metropolitan Areas.
	Source:
	"Continuing Survey of Road Goods Transport 2003"

Leeds Supertram

Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to make an announcement on the proposed Supertram scheme in Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: The Secretary of State made clear the position on the Supertram scheme in his Oral statement last summer on 20 July 2004, Official Report, column 159. Since then revised proposals have been submitted for consideration and will be decided upon in due course.

Vehicle Excise Duty

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the (a) total value and (b) percentage of total expected revenue of vehicle excise duty evasion is estimated to have been in each year since 1997–98.

Stephen Ladyman: Estimates of vehicle excise duty (VED) evasion are made by national roadside surveys undertaken by DfT statisticians. Surveys were carried out in 1994, 1999, 2002 and the latest survey took place in June 2004.
	
		
			  Estimated value of loss through VED evasion (£ million) Estimated percentage of revenue due 
		
		
			 1994 200 4.1 
			 1999 191 3.9 
			 2002 206 4.8 
			 2004 129 3.4

Tax Credits

Ben Wallace: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much in overpayment of (a) working tax credit and (b) working family tax credit is owed to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

Dawn Primarolo: Estimates of numbers and values of child tax credit and working tax credit overpayments for 2003–04 awards at 5 April 2004, appear in the HMRC publication, "Child and Working Tax Credits Statistics. Finalised Awards 2003–04. Supplement on payments in 2003–04." The estimates are based on samples and are subject to significant sampling uncertainty. This publication can be found in the Library.
	Working families' tax credit awards were based on a snapshot of income and circumstances around the time of claim, and were then fixed at a specific amount regardless of any rise or fall in income for 26 weeks.

Tax Credits

David Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the operation of the tax credits system.

Dawn Primarolo: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham in the Chamber this morning.

Debt Relief

Madeleine Moon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made towards 100 per cent. multilateral debt relief.

Ivan Lewis: Last month G7 Finance Ministers agreed a detailed plan to match 100 per cent. bilateral debt write off with 100 per cent. multilateral debt cancellation for the 38 heavily indebted poor countries.
	This covers debts owed to the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and African Development fund of some 55 billion dollars. 18 countries will have their debts cancelled immediately, worth around 40 billion dollars once the plan is agreed by IMF and World Bank boards.

Stamp Duty

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer How much tax was raised from stamp duty in the (a) 1997–98 and (b) 2004–05 financial year.

Ivan Lewis: Stamp duty on property transactions raised £1.5 billion in 1997–98, and stamp duty land tax, which replaced stamp duty in 2003, raised £6.3 billion in 2004–05.
	Stamp duty on transactions in the shares of UK incorporated companies raised £1.96 billion in 1997–98. The figure for the 2004–05 financial year will be published in September.

Civil Servants

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what value for money procurement savings were identified and what reduction in civil service posts occurred in his Department in 2004–05.

Charles Clarke: In pre-Budget report 2004, the Chancellor reported Office for Government Commerce (OGC) value for money gains in central civil Government procurement for 2003–04 of £2 billion. OGC value for money procurement gains for 2004–05 are being calculated and will be published in the 2005 Treasury autumn performance report.
	In Budget 2005, the Chancellor announced a headcount reduction of 12,500 posts by the end of 2004–05, towards the Government's target of a gross reduction of 84,000 civil service and administrative posts by 2008. My Department's performance was reported in the 2005 Home Office annual report (Cm 6528); the size of the Department's headquarters was reduced by 876 full time equivalent posts.

Education in Prison

David Kidney: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for improving education services in prisons.

Fiona Mactaggart: The way in which education and training are delivered in prisons, and the content of the learning offered, are changing. From August 2005, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) will in three regions (the North West, North East and South West) take responsibility for delivering an integrated learning and skills service for offenders both in custody and the community, linking it much more explicitly with mainstream provision for post-16 learners. A greater focus on skills will lead to greater employability on release, thereby making a significant contribution to reducing re-offending. The remaining six regions in England will follow in August 2006.
	The new service has at its heart the principle that education and training for offenders should be more flexible and learner centred. Literacy, language and numeracy will rightly continue to be a high priority for offender learning, but the new service will for the first time bring together the Education Service with vocational training, in the context of a broader curriculum. The key change in the new arrangements is early, intense focus on assessing the offender learner's needs and preparing an individual learning plan that will set out learning needs—and achievements—as the individual moves through the criminal justice system, creating a seamless learning journey for offenders across prisons and probation and up to release.
	The key features of the new learning and skills service are outlined in a document called the "Offender's Learning Journey", available at www.dfes.gov.uk/offenderlearning (you have to select the initiatives hyperlink to view the new delivery section.) The "Offender's Learning Journey" specifies the content of the learning and skills service to be supported by the LSC from August 2005.

Home Detention Curfew Scheme

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Home Detention Curfew Scheme.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Government considers the Home Detention Curfew Scheme (HDC) is working well and has no proposals for change.
	The HDC scheme enables prisoners, primarily those serving sentences of between three months and under four years, to return to the community up to 135 days earlier than their normal release date (half-way point of the sentence). Prisoners must have a suitable address and pass a risk assessment before release can be granted. If considered suitable, prisoners are released under licence and are subject to an electronically monitored curfew, normally for 12 hours a day, at an address within England and Wales. If they breach the licence conditions they are liable to be returned to prison to serve the remaining custodial portion of their sentence in custody.
	Certain categories of prisoners are statutorily excluded from HDC, including prisoners subject to the registration requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and prisoners serving extended sentences. In addition, prisoners with any history of sexual offending or serving sentences for certain serious offences are presumed unsuitable for release on HDC unless there are exceptional reasons to grant release.
	Prisoners serving determinate sentences of four years or more whose offences were committed on or after 4 April 2005 are not statutorily excluded from HDC but they will be presumed unsuitable for release on HDC unless the governor considers there are exceptional circumstances.

Online Information (Victims of Crime)

Mark Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the project to make it possible for victims of crime to track the progress of their case online was initiated; what stage the project has reached; whether it is on schedule; and what the latest estimate of the cost of the project is.

Fiona Mactaggart: The facility for victims of crime to track the progress of their case online was a target for the CJS IT programme in the SR2002 period (commencing 2003–04).
	The "No Witness No Justice" (NWNJ) initiative is setting up witness care units that provides trained intermediaries, who understand the needs of victims and witnesses and will be more responsive to their individual requirements. The IT tool to support the witness case officers is being rolled out now, with the first release available from 20 June 2005. This offers officers access to existing case data stored on the Crown Prosecution Service's case management system plus the ability to search by witnesses. Enhancements will be available in November 2005 that will allow the officers to add/amend case details relating to victims and witnesses.
	This IT support is being funded from within the CJS IT ring-fence, with allocations of £1.2 million in 2004–05 and £6.5 million in 2005–06.

Prisons

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional prison places have been provided, and at what cost, in each of the last six years; what the average cost of building a new prison place is; and if he will make a statement.

Fiona Mactaggart: The number of prison places provided in each financial year since 2000–01, and the cost of providing these places, is provided in the table. These figures include both expansions at existing establishments and the construction of new prisons.
	The average cost for providing these prison places is £99,839, also including both the costs of capacity expansions at existing prisons and the construction of new prisons.
	
		Annex A
		
			  Number of places provided Cost (£ million) 
		
		
			 2005–06 1,120 (13)— 
			 2004–05 2,571 291.4 
			 2003–04 1,372 136.5 
			 2002–03 1,818 158.8 
			 2001–02 1,013 105.2 
			 2000–01 680 52.3 
		
	
	(13) The number of places for 2005–06 includes all places currently scheduled for delivery during 2005–06. Full details of costs for 2005–06 are not yet available.

Prisons

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many instances of the finding of illicit alcohol there were at Rye Hill Prison during 2004–05

Fiona Mactaggart: A total of 72 finds of illicit alcohol (fermenting liquid) were reported at HMP Rye Hill during the 2004–05 financial year.

Young Offenders

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the target is of the Youth Justice Board for the number of hours a week young offenders should spend in education; and how many juvenile establishments met this target in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04.

Fiona Mactaggart: The targets for education in the custodial establishments for juvenile offenders with which the Youth Justice Board had contractual arrangements or service level agreements in 2002–03 and 2003–04 were as follows:
	2002–03
	Prison Service young offender institutions: 15 hours a week
	Contracted-out young offender institution: no target
	Secure training centres: 25 hours a week
	Local authority secure children's homes: no target
	2003–04
	Prison Service young offender institutions: 20 hours a week
	Contracted-out young offender institution: 30 hours a week
	Secure training centres: 25 hours a week
	Local authority secure children's homes: 25 hours a week
	The Youth Justice Board reports performance against target as follows:
	2002–03
	14 of the 15 young offender institutions run by the Prison Service met the target.
	Apart from one centre for a period in September, all secure training centres met the target.
	There is no centrally-collected data relating to educational performance of local authority secure children's homes or the contracted-out young offender institution in 2002–03.
	2003–04
	10 of the 13 young offender institutions run by the Prison Service met the target.
	All secure training centres met the target.
	There is no centrally-collected data relating to educational performance of local authority secure children's homes or the contracted-out young offender institution in 2002–03.

Computer Crime

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many cases of computer (a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department recorded in each year since 2001–02; and for each year, on how many occasions computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside his Department.

Hilary Benn: The numbers of cases of computer hacking, fraud and theft in DFID were as follows:
	
		
			  Hacking Fraud Theft 
		
		
			 2001–02 0 0 8 
			 2002–03 0 0 7 
			 2003–04 1 0 7 
			 2004–05 1 0 4 
		
	
	DFID computer systems were accessed illegally by computer hackers from outside the Department on one occasion in each of the years 2003–04 and 2004–05.

Health Care (Developing Countries)

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 
	(1)  what discussions he has had with the World Bank on its policy on charging user fees for health care in developing countries;
	(2)  what plans there are to discuss charging of user fees for health care in developing countries at the G8 summit in July;
	(3)  what assessment he has made of the merits of charging user fees for health care in developing countries.

Hilary Benn: DFID's recent assessments are that official user fees contribute minimal amounts to the financing of public services. Additionally, official user fees are a significant barrier to poor people's access to basic health services. In the poorest countries, there has been little success implementing fee exemptions and waivers targeted to poor people. Evidence from Uganda and elsewhere suggests that removing official fees boosts access to services. Therefore, DFID strongly supports the removal of official user fees for basic health care.
	Other fees and charges such as those for medicines, for transport to clinics, and informal or private charges for service, can be more significant in scale, both as a barrier to access and in terms of the revenue they generate. DFID supports the removal of other fees and charges, and helps countries to identify alternative sources of finance for basic health care.
	The G8 summit will discuss financing of health care as part of the Africa agenda. To make improved access to services a reality, we are encouraging the removal of user fees and we are seeking significantly increased resources for health. At Gleneagles we are calling for an extra $50 billion a year in development assistance. DFID has regular policy discussions with the World Bank at both Headquarters and country level. This includes discussions on options for financing of health services—the World Bank does not have a blanket policy on user fees. We will continue to work with the World Bank, and other partners such as the World Health Organisation, in supporting countries to make progress towards universal access to basic health services.

International Development Organisations (Subscriptions)

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much the Government have committed to the (a) World Bank Group, (b) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, (c) European Investment Bank, (d) Asian Development Bank, (e) African Development Bank and (f) Inter American Development Bank in each of the last five years, broken down by (i) subscribed funds, (ii) unsubscribed funds and (iii) sums paid in capital.

Hilary Benn: holding answer 23 June 2005
	The financing arrangements of the World Bank Group, Asian Development Bank (AsDB), African Development Bank (AfDB) and Inter-American Development Bank (IaDB) are broadly similar in structure. Capital subscriptions were paid in when the UK joined these institutions, and further amounts are held by the UK, and other shareholders, as "callable" capital—that is money which the bank can draw upon if necessary. There have been no demands by these institutions on the UK's callable capital in the last five years.
	These institutions make loans on different terms. Loans at or near market rates are provided to better-off countries, and are self-financing. In addition, each of these institutions has a concessional lending arm that provides low interest, long-term loans and grants to poorer countries. The funding for these concessional resources is supplemented—replenished—by donor governments on roughly three-year cycles. The following table shows the amounts committed by the UK to the replenishments over the last five years. There have been no replenishments for the Inter-American Development Bank during this time.
	
		
			£ million 
			  International Development Association of the World Bank African Development Fund of the AfDB Asian Development Fund of the AsDB 
		
		
			 2000–01 — — — 
			 2001–02 — — 84.7 
			 2002–03 1,000 121.8 — 
			 2003–04 — — — 
			 2004–05 1,330 178.7 114.1 
		
	
	Note:
	Commitments shown under 2004–05 are subject to parliamentary approval.
	In addition to the amounts shown, "incentive" contributions have been agreed, which are conditional on progress being achieved in key areas. The amounts are £100 million for the World Bank and £27.5 million for the African Development Bank. The case for an additional contribution to the Asian Development Bank will be considered at the end of 2006.
	The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was established in 1991. The UK share of the bank's capital is 8.5 per cent., which is around €1.7 billion. Of this, €446 million is paid-in capital, and the Government are making annual instalments of around £16 million to fulfil this commitment; the total amount will have been paid by 2009. EBRD does not make concessional loans.
	After the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, the European Investment Bank's (EIB) capital was increased to €164 billion. The UK has a share of 16.3 per cent., which is €26.6 billion. Of this amount, only 5 per cent. is paid-in capital. In the last five years, there have been increases in the UK's share of the subscribed and paid-in capital but these have been fully paid from the European Investment Bank's Reserves. EIB lending is predominately non-concessional.
	In addition to the contributions we provide to these institutions' core budgets, DFID provides funding to forward particular objectives or to finance specific projects and activities. Such financing includes country specific trust funds, for example for Afghanistan; funding for research and analysis; and resources for centrally-managed initiatives such as the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries' Trust Fund, which channels donor resources to assist multilateral organisations provide their share of debt relief to countries.

Latin America

Mark Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress his Department has made in working with the (a) Inter-American Development Bank and (b) World Bank to improve the access of poor and excluded people in Latin America to (i) local and national markets and (ii) international trade.

Gareth Thomas: DFID has recently concluded the design of a new £7.6 million programme (the Latin America Markets and International Trade programme) to help the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and World Bank to better facilitate increased access of poor people in Latin America to markets and the benefits of international trade. The design of the programme has involved extensive dialogue with these Banks as well with non-governmental organisations and other partners. It will be implemented over the next four years and will be evaluated in 2006–07 and at its conclusion in 2008–09.
	The programme will build on other existing and planned co-operation between DFID and the Banks. In Bolivia, for example, the IDB's participation in DFID's 'Making Markets Work for the Poor' project has provided lessons for a large IDB project to support access to markets of poor, small-scale farmers. In Nicaragua, DFID will be supporting greater access of poor people to markets in the eco-tourism sector in a way that is intended to influence both IDB municipal development projects as well as a World Bank competitiveness project in the country.

Latin America

Mark Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his Department's (a) bilateral and (b) ultilateral expenditure has been in each year since 1997 in (i) each country in Latin America and (ii) Latin America; and if he will ake a statement.

Hilary Benn: DFID's bilateral expenditure for prior years was as follows:
	
		
			£ million 
			 Country 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 
		
		
			 Costa Rica 0.30 0.21 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.07 0.12 
			 El Salvador 0.21 0.30 0.32 1.82 0.43 0.34 0.11 
			 Guatemala 0.40 0.48 0.37 0.32 0.42 0.29 0.24 
			 Honduras 1.17 2.58 2.10 1.37 1.22 1.18 0.91 
			 Mexico 4.05 3.79 2.17 1.54 0.51 0.56 0.07 
			 Nicaragua 1.01 2.00 1.15 0.64 0.61 1.37 1.03 
			 Panama 0.43 0.37 0.32 0.23 0.16 0.04 — 
			 Central America Regional — 10.42 1.41 0.86 2.41 4.39 4.41 
			 
			 Argentina 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.01 — — — 
			 Bolivia 4.40 4.36 6.33 7.59 12.68 9.32 7.06 
			 Brazil 7.02 7.48 6.39 6.78 7.00 11.24 7.06 
			 Chile 1.14 1.03 0.41 — 0.10 0.15 0.40 
			 Colombia 2.23 2.62 1.54 1.73 0.93 0.60 0.40 
			 Ecuador 1.52 1.10 0.75 0.54 0.28 0.36 0.19 
			 Paraguay 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.09 0.07 — 
			 Peru 4.07 3.73 4.51 4.30 8.17 3.40 2.82 
			 Uruguay 0.22 0.25 0.30 — — — — 
			 Venezuela 0.18 0.18 0.94 0.04 — — — 
			 Latin America Regional 0.35 0.85 0.17 0.22 0.53 1.45 1.37 
		
	
	Figures are not yet available for 2004–05. It is not possible to disaggregate funding through our regional programmes on a country basis. However, most countries in Central and Latin America will have benefited from our regional programmes.
	Multilateral institutions record funding by calendar year. The UK share of funding of grants and concessional lending by these institutions was as follows:
	
		
			   £ million 
			 Country 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 
		
		
			 Central American countries   
			 Costa Rica 0.28 0.89 0.38 0.32 0.29 0.25 
			 El Salvador 1.90 2.27 1.41 2.31 2.02 2.04 
			 Guatemala 2.90 3.39 3.10 3.36 2.58 3.73 
			 Honduras 5.28 5.49 5.05 4.65 12.54 1.73 
			 Mexico 1.05 1.06 1.09 1.00 3.00 1.16 
			 Nicaragua 5.79 10.71 5.94 10.65 9.88 3.31 
			 Panama 0.43 0.50 0.50 0.59 0.50 1.31 
			
			 Latin American Countries   
			 Argentina 1.50 2.56 3.63 3.25 15.71 (14)-6.07 
			 Bolivia 9.88 8.47 2.41 6.58 11. 54 0.68 
			 Brazil 3.05 4.51 5.66 8.78 14.12 11.17 
			 Chile 2.19 0.70 0.49 0.98 1.18 (14)-0.74 
			 Colombia 2.65 1.25 1.64 2.43 2.11 1.80 
			 Ecuador 0.93 1.63 1.29 1.25 0.83 1.07 
			 Paraguay 0.80 0.51 0.57 0.78 0.96 0.98 
			 Peru 2.42 9.29 3.50 4.02 3.06 1.91 
			 Uruguay 0.37 0.49 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.31 
			 Venezuela 0.48 0.85 0.51 1.52 0.79 0.90 
		
	
	(14) Debt repayments on concessional lending exceeded new grants and concessional loans to these countries.
	Figures are not yet available for calendar years 2003 and 2004.

Catterick Infantry Training Centre

Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  what the maximum capacity for recruits is of each Catterick Infantry Training Centre battalion;
	(2)  how many recruits are under training at Catterick Infantry Training Centre (ITC) (a) broken down by divisions of infantry and (b) in each ITC battalion.

Don Touhig: The maximum capacity for recruits at the Infantry Training Centre (Catterick) (ITC(C)) is limited by the number of bed spaces available to recruits.
	Currently, these are as follows:
	
		
			 Battalion Bed spaces 
		
		
			 1st 810 
			 2nd 850 
			 3rd 710 
			 4th (For those temporarily medically unfit) 130 
		
	
	In addition, there are 400 surge bed spaces available at Wathgill Camp, some 10 miles from ITC(C).
	The numbers of recruits under training at ITC(C) as at 24 June 2005, broken down by Division, are as follows:
	
		
			 Division Number under training 
		
		
			 Kings 180 
			 Queens 190 
			 Light 130 
			 1stBattalion total 490 
			   
			 Scottish 150 
			 Prince of Wales 160 
			 2nd Battalion total 310 
			   
			 Guards 210 
			 Paras 100 
			 Gurkha 230 
			 3rd Battalion total 540 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. There are also currently 90 soldiers in 4th Battalion who are temporarily medically unfit.
	2. All data has been rounded to the nearest 10.

Departmental Relocation

Roger Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's posts (a) have been relocated and (b) are under consideration for relocation from London to the deprived areas of the South East.

Don Touhig: The Ministry of Defence is implementing the Lyons Review recommendations to relocate 3,900 posts out of London and the South East by 2010. This will not exclude from consideration relocation of some posts to relatively deprived areas in the South East. So far, the Ministry of Defence has not identified any posts suitable for transfer to such areas.

Front-line Fitness

Michael Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) male and (b) female (i) officers and (ii) other ranks have been declared unfit for front line duty in the (A) Army, (B) Royal Navy, (C) Royal Air Force and (D) Royal Marines in each year since 1997.

Adam Ingram: Data on the number of downgraded personnel are not available prior to 2002. Available statistics on medical downgrading are shown in the following table. This table shows all personnel who are not fully deployable. Some personnel are classified as having limited deployability, so may be deployed overseas and make a contribution to deployed operational capability.
	
		Trained UK regular forces(15): numbers medically downgraded by gender Number
		
			  1 April 2002 1 April 2003 
			  Total Male Female(16) Total Male Female(16) 
		
		
			 Officers   
			 Royal Navy(17) (18)— (18)— (18)— 250 200 50 
			 Royal Marines(17)(19) (18)— (18)— (20)— 20 20 (20)— 
			 Army(21) (18)— (18)— (18)— (18)— (18)— (18)— 
			 Royal Air Force 520 390 120 580 420 160 
			
			 Other Ranks   
			 Royal Navy (17) (18)— (18)— (18)— 2,090 1,690 400 
			 Royal Marines(17) (18)— (18)— (18)— 540 540 10 
			 Army 9,450 8,270 1,190 10,290 9,010 1,280 
			 Royal Air Force 3,350 2,690 660 3,560 2,840 720 
		
	
	
		
			  1 April 2004 1 January 2005 
			  Total Male Female(16) Total Male Female(16) 
		
		
			 Officers   
			 Royal Navy(17) 260 210 60 280 210 60 
			 Royal Marines(17)(19) 20 20 (20)— 10 10 (20)— 
			 Army(21) (18)— (18)— (18)— 1,020 820 200 
			 Royal Air Force 590 430 160 580 420 160 
			
			 Other Ranks   
			 Royal Navy (17) 2,370 1,910 460 2,340 1,860 480 
			 Royal Marines(17) 710 700 10 600 600 10 
			 Army 11,720 10,250 1,460 12,970 11,420 1,560 
			 Royal Air Force 3,760 2,980 780 3,860 3,040 820 
		
	
	(15) UK regular forces includes nursing services and excludes full-time reserve service personnel, Gurkhas, the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, mobilised reservists and naval activated reservists.
	(16) Female downgrades include personnel medically downgraded due to pregnancy.
	(17) Data for medically downgraded personnel within the Royal Navy and Royal Marines are not available prior to April 2003.
	(18) Denotes not available
	(19) There are no female Royal Marine officers.
	(20) Denotes not applicable
	(21) Army officer data are not available prior to August 2004 due to inaccurate classification of a high proportion of untrained and newly trained officers.
	Note:
	1. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.
	2. Due to the rounding methods used, figures may not always equal the sum of the parts.
	3. When rounding to the nearest 10, numbers ending in 5 have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias.
	Source:
	DASA (Tri-Service)

Jet Pilots (Flying Hours)

Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of effects on cost of the temporary reduction in the monthly flying hours for RAF fast jet pilots from 17.5 hours to 16.5 hours during 2005–06.

Adam Ingram: About £20 million will be saved as a result of the temporary reduction of average monthly flying hours for RAF fast jet pilots from 17.5 to 16.5 hours a month in 2005–06.

Royal Hospital Haslar

Mark Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on (a) maintenance and (b) capital costs at the Royal Hospital Haslar in 2003–04; and what the estimate is for each year to 2008.

Don Touhig: The expenditure details requested in respect of the Royal Hospital Haslar are as follows:
	
		
			   £ million 
			  Maintenance Capital 
		
		
			 2003–04 2.1 0.3 
			 2004–05(22) 2.1 2.0 
			 2005–06(22) 2.2 0.2 
			 2006–07(22) 2.2 0.2 
			 2007–08(22) 0 0 
		
	
	(22) Estimated
	The 2004–05 expenditure figures are shown as estimated because they are still subject to final audit by the National Audit Office. The estimate of nil expenditure for 2007–08 is due to the Ministry of Defence's planned withdrawal from management of the Royal Hospital Haslar site by 31 March 2007.

Work-related Stress

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his Department in each of the last three years; how much compensation was paid to employees in each year; how many work days were lost due to work-related stress in each year; at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work-related stress; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: Ministry of Defence records on sickness absence for civilian employees do not distinguish between work related and non-work related stress. There is no centrally collated data recorded on work-related stress for Service personnel. The information requested on the number of cases, the numbers of days lost, and the cost of those working days due to work-related stress is not therefore available.
	The compensation paid to MOD employees (service and civilian), for work- related stress, in each of the last three financial years was:
	
		
			  £000 
		
		
			 2002–03 10,568 
			 2003–04 61,594 
			 2004–05 226,730 
		
	
	The MOD has over the last three years operated a stress policy laid down in Joint Service Publication 375. This publication can be found on the internet, at http://www.mod.uk/dsef/ohs/jsp375.htm. This policy is supplemented by procedures that were designed to assist with stress reduction when identified in an individual, these procedures are:
	Confidential advice from a member of the Occupational Welfare Service.
	Time off for medical appointments and treatment.
	Reasonable adjustments to hours of work and the nature on individual's duties
	Early involvement and support from our Occupational Health experts.
	Gradual rehabilitation including reduced hours and duties.
	A comprehensive suite of work/life policies.
	The MOD does not hold centrally records on the cost of take-up of the stress related procedures.

Child Review 2004

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  what progress there has been on the commitment in the Child Review 2004 to review the way in which education formulae operate in relation to schools in deprived areas;
	(2)  what the spending per pupil was in (a) the 10 per cent. least deprived authorities and (b) the 10 per cent. most deprived authorities in (i) 1997, (ii) 2002–03, (iii) 2003–04 and (iv) 2004–05'
	(3)  what the percentage difference in spending per pupil between the 10 per cent. most deprived authorities and the 10 per cent. least deprived authorities was in (a) 1997, (b) 2002–03, (c) 2003–04 and (d) 2004–05.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 23 June 2005
	The Government targets additional resource to authorities where there are higher numbers of pupils living in deprived circumstances because these pupils are more likely to have additional educational needs, and they will require higher levels of funding if they are to have equality of opportunity. At national level, the formula for distributing funding for schools to local authorities comprises a basic entitlement for each pupil of the same age, which is the same across the country, plus top-ups reflecting the relative needs of each area, including a top-up for each pupil with additional educational needs. (The other top-ups are for higher area costs in some areas and sparsity in others). In addition, some specific grants such as Excellence in Cities have been directed towards deprived areas.
	The funding that individual schools receive in their budget shares is a matter for local authorities through their local funding formulae. Each authority's local formula should direct resources according to the relative needs of the schools in the area and their pupils. Work on the joint HM Treasury/Department for Education and Skills review of the ways in which local education authorities fund schools for the effects of social deprivation started in the autumn of 2004. The collection of evidence from stakeholders and drafting of the report is largely complete and the review will be published when conclusions have been finalised. As stated in the Child Poverty Review document published in July 2004, those conclusions will need to recognise the priority of maintaining stability and predictability in school funding, while ensuring that funds are accurately targeted according to need.
	The table sets out the spending figures for the least and most deprived authorities for 1997–98, 1998–99, 2002–03 and 2003–04. Figures for 2004–05 are not yet available. The figures reflect the Government's commitment to fund adequately pupils living in deprived circumstances.
	The figures given include those for 1998–99 because those figures are more comparable with later years. That is because spending in 1997–98 reflected the transfer of monies from local government to central Government for the nursery vouchers scheme: these were returned to local government from 1998–99. Also, because of local government reorganisation some authorities included in the calculations have only existed in their current form since 1998–99.
	
		Combined LEA and school based expenditure(23) per pupil 2Cash terms figures as reported by LEAs as at 22 June 2005
		
			  In the top 10 per cent. least deprived local authorities(25)(£) In the top 10 per cent. most deprived local authorities(25)(£) Percentage difference(26) 
			  (a) (b) (c) 
		
		
			 1997–98(27) 2,670 3,390 27.3 
			 1998–99 2,760 3,580 29.5 
			 2002–03 3,270 4,230 29.2 
			 2003–04 3,680 4,850 32.0 
			 2004–05(28) — — — 
		
	
	(23) The combined LEA and school based expenditure includes all expenditure on the education of children in LEA maintained establishments and pupils educated by the LEA other than in maintained establishments. This includes both school based expenditure and all elements of central LEA expenditure except youth and community and capital expenditure from revenue (CERA). Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are drawn from the Revenue Outturn (RO1) spending returns which local authorities submitted to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. Figures for 2002–03 onwards are drawn from the Section 52 Outturn Statement (Table A) submitted to the DfES.
	(24) Pupil figures include all pre-primary pupils, including those under-fives funded by the LEA and being educated in private settings, pupils educated in maintained mainstream schools and other LEA maintained pupils. The pupil data for pupils attending maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools are taken from the DfES Annual Schools Census. Private voluntary and independent (PVI) under-five pupil numbers are taken from the Early Years census but are only available since 1999–2000. Other LEA maintained pupils includes all pupils attending schools not maintained by the authority for whom the authority is paying full tuition fees, or educated otherwise than in schools and pupil referral units under arrangements made by the authority drawn from the Form 8b submitted to the DfES. Also included as other LEA maintained pupils are all pupils attending pupil referral units who are not registered at a maintained mainstream school drawn from the DfES Annual Schools Census. All pupil numbers are adjusted to be on a financial year basis.
	(25) The AEN Index used in the allocation of Education Formula Spending Shares to LEAs in 2004–05 is used to identify the top and bottom 10 per cent. most deprived local authorities in 2003 and these LEAs have been compared over the years listed in the above table. The Index is calculated using the percentage of children in families in receipt of income support, job seekers allowance and working families tax credit, the percentage of primary pupils with mother tongue other than English and of secondary pupils from low achieving ethnic groups. However, due to local government reorganisation on 1 April 1998, five LEAs included in the 10 per cent. least deprived LEAs and did not exist in 1997–98 and have therefore been excluded for this year.
	(26) The percentage difference is defined as the difference between spending per pupil in the 10 per cent. most deprived LEAs and 10 per cent. least deprived LEAs as a percentage of spending per pupil in the 10 per cent. least deprived LEAs (i.e. (column (b)—column (a))/(column (a)).
	(27) Spending in 1997–98 reflects the transfer of monies from local government to central Government for the nursery vouchers scheme. These were returned to local government from 1998–99.
	(28) Expenditure data for 2004–05 is not due to be collected by the Department until October 2005.
	Note:
	Unit cost figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

City Academies

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answers of 6 June 2005, Official Report, column 331W and 21 June 2005, Official Report, column 191W, on city academies, how many lessons in city academies have been inspected by Ofsted in each year since the first city academy was opened.

Jacqui Smith: The number of lessons in academies inspected by HMI since the first academy was opened is 386. This includes two formal Section 10 inspections of lessons at Greig city academy (December 2004) and Unity city academy (March 2005), as well as a number of monitoring visits. 203 lessons were inspected during 2004 and 183 lessons have been inspected, so far, for 2005.

Education Funding (Birth Rates)

Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the effect of falling birth rates on the funding that is required for (a) primary and (b) secondary schools.

Jacqui Smith: The Department takes account of projected pupil numbers in assessing future spending pressures on schools. The majority of costs in schools are closely related to the number of pupils, but some costs relate more to the existence and functioning of the school. Pupil numbers in primary schools have been falling for some years and in secondary schools will be falling from now on.

Education Services (Worcestershire)

Michael Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 28 June 2005 to the hon. Member for Stroud to Question ref 6816, what assessment she has made of the financial impact on Worcestershire local education authority of 443 pupils from the county receiving their schooling in Gloucestershire.

Jacqui Smith: The school funding formula distributes resources to authorities on the basis of where pupils are counted on the school roll. The 443 Worcestershire pupils who are attending Gloucestershire schools will therefore attract funding, on a per pupil basis, into Gloucestershire LEA's schools formula spending share (SPSS). Nevertheless, Worcestershire retains some residual responsibility for pupils who reside in their area—e.g in relation to SEN statementing—and therefore Worcestershire's LEA formula spending share (LEAFSS) includes an element of funding which is based on pupils' residence.

Pupil Behaviour Programmes

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements her Department has made to give professional training on issues facing gay and lesbian pupils to those delivering the programme for improving pupil behaviour.

Jacqui Smith: We are committed to countering all forms of discrimination in schools, including homophobia. To achieve that:
	The anti-bullying charter for action specifically mentions homophobic bullying;
	The comprehensive guidance we have given schools on countering bullying includes advice on dealing with homophobic bullying;
	The training materials available to staff in schools through our national secondary strategy also cover homophobic bullying;
	Secondary strategy behaviour and attendance consultants, of which there is at least one in every local education authority, and primary national strategy leads, have been closely involved in our national "Make The Difference anti-bullying" conferences. These conferences included a close focus on countering homophobic bullying.

Pupil Exclusions

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupil exclusions there were in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each London borough in each of the last five years.

Jacqui Smith: The information requested is shown in the following tables.
	
		Number of pupils absent for at least one half day due to unauthorised absence, 2000 to 2004—maintained schools in England (excluding special schools and CTCs)
		
			  Primary 
			  2000 2001 2002 
			 LEA Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 75 42.4 60 32.8 24 13.5 
			 Camden 2,633 28.3 3,503 37.5 3,596 38.5 
			 Greenwich 6,141 35.6 6,205 35.5 6,050 34.9 
			 Hackney 5,187 34.7 5,422 36.7 5,121 34.5 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 2,588 31.0 1,867 24.1 2,057 25.6 
			 Islington 4,206 32.4 4,265 32.2 4,443 33.9 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1,721 34.9 1,592 27.6 1,663 29.2 
			 Lambeth 5,424 36.6 5,647 35.2 4,489 28.7 
			 Lewisham 7,199 39.7 8,376 42.3 7,440 38.5 
			 Southwark 7,713 42.2 7,912 41.7 8,816 43.9 
			 Tower Hamlets 8,581 49.7 8,779 49.9 8,265 48.0 
			 Wandsworth 3,035 21.1 2,841 19.9 2,680 19.0 
			 Westminster, City of 2,623 35.2 2,481 29.4 2,505 28.7 
			 Barking and Dagenham 5,758 38.2 5,602 36.9 6,124 40.6 
			 Barnet 3,826 17.9 4,070 18.4 4,393 20.0 
			 Bexley 2,286 13.4 1,861 10.2 2,098 11.4 
			 Brent 3,971 21.2 3,198 17.4 3,262 17.4 
			 Bromley 3,090 14.0 2,941 13.1 2,943 13.4 
			 Croydon 4,156 16.2 4,829 18.1 4,704 17.8 
			 Ealing 3,722 17.3 3,142 14.6 2,378 11.1 
			 Enfield 6,444 29.5 6,559 28.8 7,149 30.6 
			 Haringey 6,016 38.7 6,723 39.1 7,210 40.3 
			 Harrow 3,145 17.8 2,782 16.1 2,274 13.5 
			 Havering 1,414 7.9 1,573 8.7 1,727 9.8 
			 Hillingdon 5,292 25.8 5,330 27.8 4,875 24.4 
			 Hounslow 4,213 26.5 4,921 31.9 4,920 31.4 
			 Kingston upon Thames 1,158 12.7 907 9.4 933 9.7 
			 Merton 2,543 20.8 1,875 15.8 1,677 14.1 
			 Newham 12,319 51.0 12,254 48.0 11,584 44.6 
			 Redbridge 4,962 27.4 6,214 31.3 5,402 26.8 
			 Richmond upon Thames 778 7.5 796 7.7 896 8.7 
			 Sutton 1,636 12.7 1,839 14.6 1,794 14.1 
			 Waltham Forest 4,192 23.0 4,286 22.9 3,289 18.1 
		
	
	
		
			  Primary 
			  2003 2004 
			 LEA Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 0.0 25 14.2 
			 Camden 2,874 30.8 2,691 28.6 
			 Greenwich 6,674 38.1 6,254 35.9 
			 Hackney 4,943 33.5 5,023 33.9 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,510 19.7 1,752 22.6 
			 Islington 4,716 36.5 3,864 30.5 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1,505 26.4 1,108 19.1 
			 Lambeth 5,348 31.7 4,996 29.9 
			 Lewisham 6,753 34.6 7,151 36.6 
			 Southwark 9,472 46.2 8,753 41.5 
			 Tower Hamlets 8,173 46.8 8,364 47.5 
			 Wandsworth 2,831 19.6 2,794 20.1 
			 Westminster, City of 2,346 26.3 1,889 21.4 
			 Barking and Dagenham 6,265 41.2 5,568 36.6 
			 Barnet 4,318 19.4 5,328 24.1 
			 Bexley 1,967 11.0 2,016 11.3 
			 Brent 3,036 16.2 3,246 17.2 
			 Bromley 3,180 14.5 4,405 20.6 
			 Croydon 5,456 21.2 5,727 22.1 
			 Ealing 2,166 10.1 2,490 11.8 
			 Enfield 7,446 32.0 6,514 27.7 
			 Haringey 7,351 40.2 6,455 35.4 
			 Harrow 1,675 9.7 1,514 8.7 
			 Havering 1,745 10.0 1,732 10.0 
			 Hillingdon 4,370 22.1 4,207 21.7 
			 Hounslow 5,539 35.7 5,373 34.9 
			 Kingston upon Thames 834 8.7 950 10.0 
			 Merton 1,640 14.9 1,355 12.1 
			 Newham 9,962 38.3 7,389 28.7 
			 Redbridge 5,377 26.7 5,745 29.1 
			 Richmond upon Thames 1,150 10.9 1,576 14.5 
			 Sutton 1,594 12.7 1,609 13.0 
			 Waltham Forest 3,500 19.6 3,759 21.3 
		
	
	
		
			  Secondary 
			  2000 2001 2002 
			 LEA Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 — 0 — 0 — 
			 Camden 1,774 20.5 2,093 24.2 1,985 22.8 
			 Greenwich 2,818 22.3 3,345 26.0 3,715 28.6 
			 Hackney 1,945 28.2 2,595 33.5 2,876 35.0 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,268 24.5 1,302 21.0 1,375 22.1 
			 Islington 2,371 33.5 2,739 36.1 2,360 29.9 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1,080 34.6 1,077 34.4 925 30.0 
			 Lambeth 1,418 19.9 1,674 23.4 1,746 24.3 
			 Lewisham 4,224 38.8 4,595 40.8 4,474 43.4 
			 Southwark 2,581 25.5 2,566 24.4 3,311 30.8 
			 Tower Hamlets 5,567 42.2 5,592 41.5 5,831 42.9 
			 Wandsworth 1,910 21.3 2,155 24.1 2,218 24.9 
			 Westminster, City of 3,066 43.5 1,799 25.2 2,331 32.6 
			 Barking and Dagenham 2,804 28.7 3,181 31.7 3,614 34.5 
			 Barnet 2,601 15.2 3,148 17.6 3,939 22.1 
			 Bexley 2,546 17.0 3,224 20.6 3,361 21.0 
			 Brent 1,875 15.4 1,930 15.6 1,874 15.0 
			 Bromley 2,030 11.8 3,519 19.9 3,188 17.6 
			 Croydon 2,323 14.7 2,314 13.5 2,688 15.2 
			 Ealing 2,062 15.4 2,804 20.7 2,545 18.5 
			 Enfield 5,509 31.5 6,238 35.2 5,864 32.9 
			 Haringey 2,697 26.3 2,786 30.0 4,150 37.5 
			 Harrow 862 9.7 1,111 12.2 1,097 11.9 
			 Havering 1,753 11.9 2,112 14.0 2,101 13.7 
			 Hillingdon 3,434 24.8 3,125 22.1 3,541 23.8 
			 Hounslow 1,866 13.6 1,681 12.1 2,494 18.2 
			 Kingston upon Thames 1,280 17.9 997 13.6 1,143 15.3 
			 Merton 2,168 28.5 2,156 28.9 2,106 29.2 
			 Newham 7,622 43.7 7,831 44.5 7,363 41.5 
			 Redbridge 1,654 10.8 2,072 13.7 2,800 18.2 
			 Richmond upon Thames 1,478 19.2 2,332 30.1 2,700 35.7 
			 Sutton 1,026 8.8 1,512 12.4 2,106 17.0 
			 Waltham Forest 3,476 27.5 3,715 28.9 3,749 28.5 
		
	
	
		
			  Secondary 
			  2003 2004 
			 LEA Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 — 0 — 
			 Camden 1,755 23.2 1,628 21.6 
			 Greenwich 4,426 33.5 4,913 36.9 
			 Hackney 2,112 26.2 2,727 37.6 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,492 23.7 1,580 25.6 
			 Islington 2,811 35.2 2,876 36.1 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 890 28.8 568 18.3 
			 Lambeth 1,685 23.2 870 11.5 
			 Lewisham 4,137 36.6 5,340 47.2 
			 Southwark 3,897 35.6 2,831 25.2 
			 Tower Hamlets 6,501 48.2 6,186 45.6 
			 Wandsworth 2,322 25.7 1,705 21.6 
			 Westminster, City of 2,992 41.4 3,302 44.7 
			 Barking and Dagenham 3,851 35.4 4,019 35.5 
			 Barnet 3,324 18.5 4,090 23.4 
			 Bexley 2,944 18.8 3,556 21.1 
			 Brent 2,705 19.8 2,240 16.1 
			 Bromley 4,302 23.8 3,428 18.7 
			 Croydon 4,733 26.2 3,931 21.9 
			 Ealing 2,279 16.3 2,990 21.3 
			 Enfield 6,443 35.2 8,062 42.7 
			 Haringey 4,666 41.7 4,325 38.2 
			 Harrow 1,125 12.1 1,100 11.8 
			 Havering 1,993 12.8 2,237 14.2 
			 Hillingdon 4,729 31.4 4,992 31.9 
			 Hounslow 2,317 16.5 3,074 22.0 
			 Kingston upon Thames 845 11.1 724 10.8 
			 Merton 2,295 27.8 2,073 25.2 
			 Newham 6,969 38.3 6,367 35.0 
			 Redbridge 2,630 16.6 4,203 26.3 
			 Richmond upon Thames 2,419 31.8 2,737 35.9 
			 Sutton 1,938 15.1 2,518 19.2 
			 Waltham Forest 3,316 24.9 5,012 36.6 
		
	
	'—'= not applicable

School Bullying

Mark Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools did not have a school bullying policy in place in 2004–05.

Jacqui Smith: All schools are required, under section S61 of the School Standards Framework Act 1998, to have an anti-bullying policy in place.
	We are not aware of any schools which do not comply with this requirement.

School Bullying

Mark Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the Answer of 7 June 2005, Official Report, column 471W, on bullying, if she will list the items of research to which she refers.

Jacqui Smith: The information requested is as follows.
	Impact of bullying on truancy
	Dalziel and Henthorne (2005) "Parents'/Carers' Attitudes Towards School Attendance" DfES Research Report RR618
	http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR618.pdf
	Malcolm, Wilson, Davidson and Kirk (2003) "Absence from School: A Study of its Causes and Effects in Seven LEAs" DfES Research Report RR 424
	http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR424.pdf
	Impact of bullying on exclusions
	DfES (2005) "Permanent and Fixed Period Exclusions from Schools and Exclusion Appeals in England, 2003/04" National Statistics First Release SFR 23/2005 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000582/SFR23–2005.pdf
	MORI (2004) "MORI Youth Survey 2004" Youth Justice Board for England and Wales http://www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk/Publications/Scripts/fileDownload.asp?file=YouthSurvey2004.pdf
	Armstrong et al (2005) "Children, risk and crime: the On Track Youth Lifestyles Surveys" Home Office Research Study 278
	http://uk.sitestat.com/homeoffice/homeoffice/s?rds.hors278pdf&ns_type=pdf&ns_url=%5Bhttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors278.pdf%5D
	Impact of bullying on participation in further and higher education
	Kidscape (1999) "Kidscape Survey: Long-term Effects of Bullying"
	http://www.kidscape.org.uk/assets/downloads/kslongtermeffects.pdf
	Impact of bullying on the incidence of self-harm and suicide
	Kidscape (1999) "Kidscape Survey: Long-term Effects of Bullying"
	http://www.kidscape.org.uk/assets/downloads/kslongtermeffects.pdf
	Rivers, (2004) "Recollections of Bullying at School and their Long-Term Implications for Lesbians, Gay men and Bisexuals" Crisis Vol. 25 (4)
	Tackling bullying
	Warwick, Chase and Aggleton with Sanders (2004) "Homophobia, Sexual Orientation and Schools: A Review and Implications for Action" DfES Research Report RR594
	http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR594.pdf
	Smith and Sumara (2003) "Evaluation of the DfES Anti-Bullying Pack" DfES Research Brief RBX06–03
	http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RBX06–03.pdf
	Oliver and Candappa (2003) "Tackling Bullying: Listening to the Views of Children and Young People" DfES Research Report RR400
	http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR400.pdf

School Maintenance

Francis Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on maintenance and improvement of (a) primary and junior schools and (b) secondary schools in (i) West Sussex, (ii) Kent, (iii) Durham, (iv) East Riding of Yorkshire and (v) each English county in each of the last eight years.

Jacqui Smith: Expenditure on maintenance and improvement of (a) primary and junior schools and (b) secondary schools is determined by local authorities and schools in accordance with their local asset management plans.
	School capital allocations to local authorities and schools in (i) West Sussex, (ii) Kent, (iii) Durham, (iv) East Riding of Yorkshire and (v) each English county in each of the last eight years are set out in the following table:
	
		
			 £000 
			 LEA name 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 
		
		
			 Bedfordshire 6,261 7,230 16,740 38,402 18,638 18,359 20,621 16,250 
			 Buckinghamshire 9,318 13,072 21,116 14,017 20,627 27,460 26,443 21,050 
			 Cambridgeshire 11,955 12,294 23,939 22,241 27,974 38,682 33,212 24,598 
			 Cheshire 9,784 15,337 27,912 34,224 24,973 34,224 30,488 26,288 
			 Cornwall 10,910 11,621 81,513 19,029 28,239 99,602 33,273 20,003 
			 Cumbria 7,750 10,412 19,703 16,447 23,174 21,193 23,723 19,005 
			 Derbyshire 12,965 13,855 27,405 50,596 37,530 74,516 41,778 32,577 
			 Devon 13,202 16,841 27,336 26,658 46,619 122,740 56,137 24,973 
			 Dorset 8,405 7,256 13,247 11,596 21,935 22,855 16,276 18,929 
			 Durham 11,525 12,308 19,777 17,459 27,059 33,035 25,282 25,815 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 5,218 36,964 16,235 11,208 16,181 20,432 21,642 16,997 
			 East Sussex 15,093 30,258 18,149 16,146 23,932 24,402 23,721 17,703 
			 Essex 15,510 21,928 57,317 41,770 84,492 63,462 63,202 55,618 
			 Gloucestershire 7,019 12,942 26,870 24,170 27,563 28,486 36,782 30,157 
			 Hampshire 22,054 19,190 43,116 38,118 54,428 70,786 62,874 50,882 
			 Hertfordshire 14,850 15,183 36,733 26,531 47,413 43,353 60,759 63,764 
			 Kent 23,174 21,598 63,044 48,222 73,151 92,848 181,101 90,461 
			 Lancashire 19,457 36,807 42,300 36,021 55,453 62,607 44,234 38,054 
			 Leicestershire 6,503 9,232 20,957 15,831 25,401 27,582 33,834 22,867 
			 Lincolnshire 6,310 9,702 26,968 39,013 26,928 28,157 33,779 29,340 
			 Norfolk 10,815 12,089 28,303 25,472 130,152 39,292 108,282 34,457 
			 North Yorkshire 8,500 11,250 31,470 18,919 26,946 34,086 27,377 21,993 
			 Northamptonshire 15,394 12,308 26,802 22,935 56,011 130,466 36,015 25,035 
			 Northumberland 4,654 6,174 15,496 9,461 12,875 13,730 15,920 11,700 
			 Nottinghamshire 10,105 16,391 45,404 29,005 33,779 157,700 31,112 26,170 
			 Oxfordshire 11,779 13,814 24,973 26,822 33,687 33,394 36,896 36,243 
			 Somerset 8,765 9,188 18,148 17,621 20,049 19,249 21,831 18,212 
			 Staffordshire 28,435 18,549 34,145 27,479 32,905 35,529 41,071 29,194 
			 Surrey 16,986 14,101 33,113 28,529 39,836 48,336 45,928 38,278 
			 Warwickshire 6,414 7,339 17,511 14,143 23,787 34,454 25,499 19,169 
			 West Sussex 10,922 9,990 21,593 19,101 86,759 30,799 34,381 36,014 
			 Wiltshire 7,572 7,221 54,228 12,083 19,349 27,615 21,251 15,740 
			 Worcestershire 9,658 12,554 26,799 17,884 26,086 24,264 88,860 19,602 
		
	
	Revenue expenditure figures on the maintenance and improvement of schools are likely to vary from year to year depending on the unique circumstances of a particular LEA. For example, revenue expenditure will increase in years where there have been adverse weather conditions (e.g. repairing storm damage) and is also likely to vary with the number and age of the school buildings within the LEA. Revenue expenditure will also be affected by the amounts of capital allocated to each school.
	The available information is contained within the following table:
	
		Maintenance and improvement of school buildings and grounds since 1998 (29) , (30) , (31) , (32)  £000
		
			  1998–99 (29) 
			  Pre-primary and primary education Secondary education 
		
		
			 Bedfordshire 1,311 3,197 
			 Buckinghamshire 3,843 3,305 
			 Cambridgeshire 3,689 2,051 
			 Cheshire 4,729 3,451 
			 Cornwall 4,932 4,448 
			 Cumbria 4,647 3,033 
			 Derbyshire 4,999 3,745 
			 Devon 4,711 2,708 
			 Dorset 1,553 1,864 
			 Durham 4,645 3,380 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 1,854 2,143 
			 East Sussex 2,054 2,252 
			 Essex 7,248 3,007 
			 Gloucestershire 3,171 797 
			 Hampshire 7,634 5,569 
			 Hertfordshire 4,820 4,088 
			 Kent 4,097 1,958 
			 Lancashire 6,078 4,360 
			 Leicestershire 3,486 4,157 
			 Lincolnshire 2,151 1,318 
			 Norfolk 4,085 4,135 
			 North Yorkshire 3,071 3,787 
			 Northamptonshire 3,356 2,095 
			 Northumberland 2,188 2,516 
			 Nottinghamshire 3,805 4,076 
			 Oxfordshire 1,416 1,175 
			 Shropshire 1,631 1,906 
			 Somerset 896 1,598 
			 Staffordshire 2,709 3,623 
			 Surrey 2,916 1,845 
			 Warwickshire 2,499 1,644 
			 West Sussex 3,647 3,390 
			 Wiltshire 1,815 804 
			 Worcestershire 2,659 2,429 
		
	
	
		1999–2000 £000
		
			  Pre-primary Primary education Pre-primary and primary education Secondary education 
		
		
			 Bedfordshire 13 0 13 0 
			 Buckinghamshire 6 2,172 2,178 2,774 
			 Cambridgeshire 22 2,608 2,630 2,054 
			 Cheshire 21 4,495 4,516 4,486 
			 Cornwall 8 2,756 2,764 2,410 
			 Cumbria 65 1,802 1,867 2,181 
			 Derbyshire 32 2,182 2,214 1,758 
			 Devon 22 5,285 5,306 3,206 
			 Dorset 1 949 949 1,759 
			 Durham 215 2,519 2,733 2,355 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 108 1,459 1,566 1,673 
			 East Sussex 0 2,327 2,327 1,915 
			 Essex 16 5,405 5,421 5,668 
			 Gloucestershire 9 5,182 5,191 5,273 
			 Hampshire 11 6,091 6,102 5,901 
			 Hertfordshire 94 5,673 5,768 5,248 
			 Kent 3 5,903 5,907 7,209 
			 Lancashire 237 8,317 8,554 6,396 
			 Leicestershire 0 2,713 2,713 4,342 
			 Lincolnshire 40 2,773 2,813 2,199 
			 Norfolk 15 3,621 3,636 3,704 
			 North Yorkshire 19 3,389 3,408 4,067 
			 Northamptonshire 34 3,865 3,898 3,388 
			 Northumberland 2 2,349 2,350 2,699 
			 Nottinghamshire 43 5,166 5,210 7,042 
			 Oxfordshire 56 941 997 468 
			 Shropshire 0 1,005 1,006 842 
			 Somerset 3 623 626 1,269 
			 Staffordshire 8 2,686 2,694 3,321 
			 Surrey 35 3,589 3,625 2,896 
			 Warwickshire 204 3,181 3,386 3,437 
			 West Sussex 15 1,576 1,591 1,748 
			 Wiltshire 0 1,802 1,802 1,687 
			 Worcestershire 15 1,575 1,590 2,142 
		
	
	
		2000–01 £000
		
			  Pre-primary Primary education Pre-primary and primary education Secondary education 
		
		
			 Bedfordshire 0 309 309 598 
			 Buckinghamshire 13 2,895 2,908 2,802 
			 Cambridgeshire 106 3,260 3,366 2,631 
			 Cheshire 6 4,426 4,431 3,359 
			 Cornwall 9 1,038 1,047 1,060 
			 Cumbria 68 3,638 3,706 3,899 
			 Derbyshire 39 3,045 3,084 2,877 
			 Devon 26 5,219 5,245 3,202 
			 Dorset 1 1,498 1,499 2,192 
			 Durham 259 3,033 3,292 2,268 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 51 2,088 2,139 2,269 
			 East Sussex 0 2,173 2,173 2,452 
			 Essex 9 8,256 8,265 8,692 
			 Gloucestershire 15 3,794 3,809 5,287 
			 Hampshire 26 6,024 6,050 6,221 
			 Hertfordshire 107 5,586 5,693 5,405 
			 Kent 32 4,924 4,956 11,351 
			 Lancashire 178 9,122 9,300 6,347 
			 Leicestershire 2 3,276 3,278 4,822 
			 Lincolnshire 25 2,783 2,808 2,452 
			 Norfolk 23 3,713 3,736 4,810 
			 North Yorkshire 74 3,006 3,081 3,740 
			 Northamptonshire 13 5,635 5,648 5,804 
			 Northumberland 11 2,596 2,607 2,986 
			 Nottinghamshire 34 3,857 3,891 4,720 
			 Oxfordshire 41 263 304 90 
			 Shropshire 0 980 980 863 
			 Somerset 3 1,181 1,183 2,092 
			 Staffordshire 10 3,003 3,013 3,341 
			 Surrey 63 5,270 5,333 3,281 
			 Warwickshire 242 2,491 2,734 2,484 
			 West Sussex 33 3,539 3,572 1,806 
			 Wiltshire 0 1,515 1,515 1,516 
			 Worcestershire 4 123 127 143 
		
	
	
		2001–02 £000
		
			  Pre-primary Primary education Pre-primary and primary education Secondary education 
		
		
			 Bedfordshire 8 2,986 2,995 2,973 
			 Buckinghamshire 12 2,767 2,779 3,045 
			 Cambridgeshire 41 2,863 2,904 2,461 
			 Cheshire 13 4,593 4,606 3,595 
			 Cornwall 796 2,555 3,351 2,652 
			 Cumbria 46 4,840 4,886 6,889 
			 Derbyshire 56 2,802 2,858 2,571 
			 Devon 16 6,088 6,104 4,181 
			 Dorset 1 1,676 1,677 2,421 
			 Durham 226 3,217 3,443 2,534 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 24 2,894 2,918 3,730 
			 East Sussex 3 2,539 2,541 3,101 
			 Essex 44 9,795 9,839 11,128 
			 Gloucestershire 138 3,297 3,435 5,342 
			 Hampshire 12 4,267 4,279 4,257 
			 Hertfordshire 83 7,536 7,619 6,162 
			 Kent 27 7,110 7,137 9,377 
			 Lancashire 217 10,540 10,757 7,721 
			 Leicestershire 10 3,387 3,396 5,794 
			 Lincolnshire 5 1,585 1,591 2,077 
			 Norfolk 11 4,839 4,850 4,119 
			 North Yorkshire 79 3,024 3,103 3,243 
			 Northamptonshire 11 4,275 4,286 3,700 
			 Northumberland 1 2,561 2,562 2,854 
			 Nottinghamshire 16 3,815 3,831 4,886 
			 Oxfordshire 84 487 571 1,642 
			 Shropshire 9 1,004 1,013 945 
			 Somerset 3 2,252 2,255 2,002 
			 Staffordshire 54 3,681 3,735 3,598 
			 Surrey 10 4,767 4,777 4,697 
			 Warwickshire 74 3,042 3,116 3,693 
			 West Sussex 41 3,325 3,365 1,578 
			 Wiltshire 0 980 980 716 
			 Worcestershire 6 2,350 2,356 3,499 
		
	
	
		
			 £000 
			  2002–03 1 2003–04 (29) 
			  Primary schools Secondary schools Primary schools Secondary schools 
		
		
			 Bedfordshire 1,526 2,607 1,473 2,272 
			 Buckinghamshire 2,569 3,167 3,106 4,350 
			 Cambridgeshire 2,539 1,884 2,731 2,552 
			 Cheshire 3,621 3,201 3,446 3,783 
			 Cornwall 2,987 3,539 2,973 3,627 
			 Cumbria 4,147 3,272 2,173 2,946 
			 Derbyshire 3,070 2,310 2,989 2,497 
			 Devon 3,426 2,874 3,415 2,550 
			 Dorset 1,594 1,972 1,589 2,251 
			 Durham 2,578 2,089 2,149 2,948 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 1,440 1,291 1,191 1,045 
			 East Sussex 1,721 1,865 1,453 1,879 
			 Essex 8,475 8,474 8,560 8,121 
			 Gloucestershire 2,284 2,755 2,510 2,667 
			 Hampshire 7,405 6,545 7,757 6,943 
			 Hertfordshire 5,026 5,427 4,308 5,241 
			 Kent 5,949 8,228 5,639 7,754 
			 Lancashire 11,262 7,079 12,261 7,576 
			 Leicestershire 3,298 4,574 3,298 4,106 
			 Lincolnshire 2,563 3,010 2,391 2,771 
			 Norfolk 6,452 4,954 6,870 5,339 
			 North Yorkshire 3,638 3,846 3,683 3,690 
			 Northamptonshire 3,544 3,084 3,503 3,494 
			 Northumberland 1,277 2,315 1,460 2,491 
			 Nottinghamshire 3,452 4,273 3,551 4,130 
			 Oxfordshire 3,418 3,960 3,291 4,204 
			 Shropshire 964 872 986 858 
			 Somerset 2,902 3,800 2,780 3,363 
			 Staffordshire 2,572 3,050 2,311 3,073 
			 Surrey 5,972 5,883 6,762 6,330 
			 Warwickshire 2,746 2,560 2,947 2,585 
			 West Sussex 3,884 3,889 4,183 4,311 
			 Wiltshire 2,330 2,363 2,049 2,553 
			 Worcestershire 2,241 3,674 2,037 3,106 
		
	
	(29) Denotes the change of source from LEAs education Revenue Outturn Statements submitted to ODPM to Section 52 Outturn Statements in 1999–00, and to the review of Section 52 categories in 2002–03 following the introduction of Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) to schools.
	(30) Figures for 1998–99 to 2001–02 cover the repair and maintenance of buildings, fixed plant and grounds which includes all expenditure on non-capital building works, including repairs and maintenance of buildings, and non-capital expenditure on fixed plant and grounds. Figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are the combination of the revenue expenditure on building (including fixed plant) maintenance and improvement and grounds maintenance and improvement categories (CFR categories E12+E13). Any capital expenditure on school buildings is not included in this table.
	(31) Figures are provided for the six years to 2003–04, the latest year for which data are available. Data for 1997–98 and earlier are not available for comparable areas due to local government re-organisation. Figures for 2002–03 onwards will not be directly comparable with figures for earlier years as figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are not available and have therefore been excluded for these two years. Also, for some LEAs, expenditure that had previously been attributed to the schools sectors was reported within the LEA part of the Section 52 form in 2002–03 and 2003–04 and would therefore be excluded from the totals for
	(32) Figures are rounded up to the nearest 1,000.

Schools (Unauthorised Absence)

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils in each London borough missed at least half a day due to unauthorised absence in (a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools, (c) special schools and (d) pupil referral units, expressed as a percentage of pupils of compulsory school age in each of the last five years.

Jacqui Smith: The information requested on the number of pupils with unauthorised absence in London boroughs for secondary, primary and special schools is shown in the following tables. Unauthorised absence includes all unexplained or unjustified absences, such as lateness, holidays during term time not authorised by the school, absence where reason is not yet established and truancy. The department does not currently collect absence data from pupil referral units, although we plan to do so in future, so this information cannot yet be provided.
	
		Number of pupils absent for at least one half day due to unauthorised absence, 2000 to 2004—maintained schools in England (excluding CTCs)
		
			  Primary 
			  2000 2001 2002 
			 LEA Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 75 42.4 60 32.8 24 13.5 
			 Camden 2,633 28.3 3,503 37.5 3,596 38.5 
			 Greenwich 6,141 35.6 6,205 35.5 6,050 34.9 
			 Hackney 5,187 34.7 5,422 36.7 5,121 34.5 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 2,588 31.0 1,867 24.1 2,057 25.6 
			 Islington 4,206 32.4 4,265 32.2 4,443 33.9 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1,721 34.9 1,592 27.6 1,663 29.2 
			 Lambeth 5,424 36.6 5,647 35.2 4,489 28.7 
			 Lewisham 7,199 39.7 8,376 42.3 7,440 38.5 
			 Southwark 7,713 42.2 7,912 41.7 8,816 43.9 
			 Tower Hamlets 8,581 49.7 8,779 49.9 8,265 48.0 
			 Wandsworth 3,035 21.1 2,841 19.9 2,680 19.0 
			 Westminster, City of 2,623 35.2 2,481 29.4 2,505 28.7 
			 Barking and Dagenham 5,758 38.2 5,602 36.9 6,124 40.6 
			 Barnet 3,826 17.9 4,070 18.4 4,393 20.0 
			 Bexley 2,286 13.4 1,861 10.2 2,098 11.4 
			 Brent 3,971 21.2 3,198 17.4 3,262 17.4 
			 Bromley 3,090 14.0 2,941 13.1 2,943 13.4 
			 Croydon 4,156 16.2 4,829 18.1 4,704 17.8 
			 Ealing 3,722 17.3 3,142 14.6 2,378 11.1 
			 Enfield 6,444 29.5 6,559 28.8 7,149 30.6 
			 Haringey 6,016 38.7 6,723 39.1 7,210 40.3 
			 Harrow 3,145 17.8 2,782 16.1 2,274 13.5 
			 Havering 1,414 7.9 1,573 8.7 1,727 9.8 
			 Hillingdon 5,292 25.8 5,330 27.8 4,875 24.4 
			 Hounslow 4,213 26.5 4,921 31.9 4,920 31.4 
			 Kingston upon Thames 1,158 12.7 907 9.4 933 9.7 
			 Merton 2,543 20.8 1,875 15.8 1,677 14.1 
			 Newham 12,319 51.0 12,254 48.0 11,584 44.6 
			 Redbridge 4,962 27.4 6,214 31.3 5,402 26.8 
			 Richmond upon Thames 778 7.5 796 7.7 896 8.7 
			 Sutton 1,636 12.7 1,839 14.6 1,794 14.1 
			 Waltham Forest 4,192 23.0 4,286 22.9 3,289 18.1 
		
	
	
		
			  2003 2004 
			  Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 0.0 25 14.2 
			 Camden 2,874 30.8 2,691 28.6 
			 Greenwich 6,674 38.1 6,254 35.9 
			 Hackney 4,943 33.5 5,023 33.9 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,510 19.7 1,752 22.6 
			 Islington 4,716 36.5 3,864 30.5 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1,505 26.4 1,108 19.1 
			 Lambeth 5,348 31.7 4,996 29.9 
			 Lewisham 6,753 34.6 7,151 36.6 
			 Southwark 9,472 46.2 8,753 41.5 
			 Tower Hamlets 8,173 46.8 8,364 47.5 
			 Wandsworth 2,831 19.6 2,794 20.1 
			 Westminster, City of 2,346 26.3 1,889 21.4 
			 Barking and Dagenham 6,265 41.2 5,568 36.6 
			 Barnet 4,318 19.4 5,328 24.1 
			 Bexley 1,967 11.0 2,016 11.3 
			 Brent 3,036 16.2 3,246 17.2 
			 Bromley 3,180 14.5 4,405 20.6 
			 Croydon 5,456 21.2 5,727 22.1 
			 Ealing 2,166 10.1 2,490 11.8 
			 Enfield 7,446 32.0 6,514 27.7 
			 Haringey 7,351 40.2 6,455 35.4 
			 Harrow 1,675 9.7 1,514 8.7 
			 Havering 1,745 10.0 1,732 10.0 
			 Hillingdon 4,370 22.1 4,207 21.7 
			 Hounslow 5,539 35.7 5,373 34.9 
			 Kingston upon Thames 834 8.7 950 10.0 
			 Merton 1,640 14.9 1,355 12.1 
			 Newham 9,962 38.3 7,389 28.7 
			 Redbridge 5,377 26.7 5,745 29.1 
			 Richmond upon Thames 1,150 10.9 1,576 14.5 
			 Sutton 1,594 12.7 1,609 13.0 
			 Waltham Forest 3,500 19.6 3,759 21.3 
		
	
	
		Number of pupils ABS—maintained schools
		
			  Secondary 
			  2000 2001 2002 
			 LEA Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 
			 Camden 1,774 20.5 2,093 24.2 1,985 22.8 
			 Greenwich 2,818 22.3 3,345 26.0 3,715 28.6 
			 Hackney 1,945 28.2 2,595 33.5 2,876 35.0 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,268 24.5 1,302 21.0 1,375 22.1 
			 Islington 2,371 33.5 2,739 36.1 2,360 29.9 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1,080 34.6 1,077 34.4 925 30.0 
			 Lambeth 1,418 19.9 1,674 23.4 1,746 24.3 
			 Lewisham 4,224 38.8 4,595 40.8 4,474 43.4 
			 Southwark 2,581 25.5 2,566 24.4 3,311 30.8 
			 Tower Hamlets 5,567 42.2 5,592 41.5 5,831 42.9 
			 Wandsworth 1,910 21.3 2,155 24.1 2,218 24.9 
			 Westminster, City of 3,066 43.5 1,799 25.2 2,331 32.6 
			 Barking and Dagenham 2,804 28.7 3,181 31.7 3,614 34.5 
			 Barnet 2,601 15.2 3,148 17.6 3,939 22.1 
			 Bexley 2,546 17.0 3,224 20.6 3,361 21.0 
			 Brent 1,875 15.4 1,930 15.6 1,874 15.0 
			 Bromley 2,030 11.8 3,519 19.9 3,188 17.6 
			 Croydon 2,323 14.7 2,314 13.5 2,688 15.2 
			 Ealing 2,062 15.4 2,804 20.7 2,545 18.5 
			 Enfield 5,509 31.5 6,238 35.2 5,864 32.9 
			 Haringey 2,697 26.3 2,786 30.0 4,150 37.5 
			 Harrow 862 9.7 1,111 12.2 1,097 11.9 
			 Havering 1,753 11.9 2,112 14.0 2,101 13.7 
			 Hillingdon 3,434 24.8 3,125 22.1 3,541 23.8 
			 Hounslow 1,866 13.6 1,681 12.1 2,494 18.2 
			 Kingston upon Thames 1,280 17.9 997 13.6 1,143 15.3 
			 Merton 2,168 28.5 2,156 28.9 2,106 29.2 
			 Newham 7,622 43.7 7,831 44.5 7,363 41.5 
			 Redbridge 1,654 10.8 2,072 13.7 2,800 18.2 
			 Richmond upon Thames 1,478 19.2 2,332 30.1 2,700 35.7 
			 Sutton 1,026 8.8 1,512 12.4 2,106 17.0 
			 Waltham Forest 3,476 27.5 3,715 28.9 3,749 28.5 
		
	
	
		
			  2003 2004 
			  Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 n/a 0 n/a 
			 Camden 1,755 23.2 1,628 21.6 
			 Greenwich 4,426 33.5 4,913 36.9 
			 Hackney 2,112 26.2 2,727 37.6 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,492 23.7 1,580 25.6 
			 Islington 2,811 35.2 2,876 36.1 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 890 28.8 568 18.3 
			 Lambeth 1,685 23.2 870 11.5 
			 Lewisham 4,137 36.6 5,340 47.2 
			 Southwark 3,897 35.6 2,831 25.2 
			 Tower Hamlets 6,501 48.2 6,186 45.6 
			 Wandsworth 2,322 25.7 1,705 21.6 
			 Westminster, City of 2,992 41.4 3,302 44.7 
			 Barking and Dagenham 3,851 35.4 4,019 35.5 
			 Barnet 3,324 18.5 4,090 23.4 
			 Bexley 2,944 18.8 3,556 21.1 
			 Brent 2,705 19.8 2,240 16.1 
			 Bromley 4,302 23.8 3,428 18.7 
			 Croydon 4,733 26.2 3,931 21.9 
			 Ealing 2,279 16.3 2,990 21.3 
			 Enfield 6,443 35.2 8,062 42.7 
			 Haringey 4,666 41.7 4,325 38.2 
			 Harrow 1,125 12.1 1,100 11.8 
			 Havering 1,993 12.8 2,237 14.2 
			 Hillingdon 4,729 31.4 4,992 31.9 
			 Hounslow 2,317 16.5 3,074 22.0 
			 Kingston upon Thames 845 11.1 724 10.8 
			 Merton 2,295 27.8 2,073 25.2 
			 Newham 6,969 38.3 6,367 35.0 
			 Redbridge 2,630 16.6 4,203 26.3 
			 Richmond upon Thames 2,419 31.8 2,737 35.9 
			 Sutton 1,938 15.1 2,518 19.2 
			 Waltham Forest 3,316 24.9 5,012 36.6 
		
	
	n/a = not applicable
	
		Number of pupils ABS—maintained schools
		
			  Specials 
			  2000 2001 2002 
			  Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 
			 Camden 115 44.4 81 29.3 99 37.1 
			 Greenwich 231 42.1 243 46.3 205 44.5 
			 Hackney 181 56.9 223 60.1 175 46.5 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 84 28.5 79 26.3 68 22.8 
			 Islington 89 37.9 116 51.6 24 11.3 
			 Kensington and Chelsea (33)— (33)— 0 0.0 (33)— (33)— 
			 Lambeth 207 34.6 215 43.4 259 45.2 
			 Lewisham 242 47.2 275 54.5 250 48.6 
			 Southwark 131 32.0 214 50.6 218 48.4 
			 Tower Hamlets 113 26.0 104 26.0 113 30.2 
			 Wandsworth 233 40.0 254 44.3 225 40.1 
			 Westminster, City of 66 48.2 33 25.4 31 24.2 
			 Barking and Dagenham 0 0.0 3 1.8 6 3.4 
			 Barnet 77 28.3 77 28.7 64 23.1 
			 Bexley 64 16.0 82 21.0 61 15.4 
			 Brent 80 21.6 70 18.0 62 16.6 
			 Bromley 77 19.7 158 39.6 63 16.2 
			 Croydon 197 39.1 199 39.7 148 28.8 
			 Ealing 96 21.1 74 16.2 94 21.2 
			 Enfield 124 27.1 144 32.7 154 35.6 
			 Haringey 136 40.0 89 28.1 87 30.6 
			 Harrow 71 38.8 44 23.2 74 38.9 
			 Havering 9 3.4 19 9.0 44 20.9 
			 Hillingdon 106 33.1 152 35.4 121 27.4 
			 Hounslow 109 28.8 85 23.2 89 23.7 
			 Kingston upon Thames 48 20.2 70 28.0 67 25.9 
			 Merton 95 39.6 92 38.7 97 39.8 
			 Newham 63 50.8 27 23.7 17 15.0 
			 Redbridge 160 37.0 158 37.9 189 46.6 
			 Richmond upon Thames 26 15.5 20 13.3 25 17.6 
			 Sutton 137 50.9 111 46.1 105 42.0 
			 Waltham Forest 168 28.5 119 20.6 110 19.0 
		
	
	
		
			  2003 2004 
			  Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 n/a 0 n/a 
			 Camden 62 23.8 57 20.3 
			 Greenwich 224 52.0 222 52.9 
			 Hackney 222 62.9 188 53.0 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 69 26.0 70 26.0 
			 Islington 10 4.6 6 2.7 
			 Kensington and Chelsea (33)— (33)— (33)— (33)— 
			 Lambeth 150 38.6 215 39.7 
			 Lewisham 212 39.0 234 45.6 
			 Southwark 209 47.1 243 55.5 
			 Tower Hamlets 106 31.7 101 32.3 
			 Wandsworth 255 44.9 239 43.7 
			 Westminster, City of (33)— (33)— 0 0.0 
			 Barking and Dagenham 8 4.8 (33)— (33)— 
			 Barnet 46 15.6 90 29.6 
			 Bexley 87 22.0 118 28.6 
			 Brent 46 12.5 33 9.4 
			 Bromley 75 18.0 84 19.6 
			 Croydon 216 39.6 138 25.6 
			 Ealing 81 19.2 73 16.7 
			 Enfield 114 25.4 131 29.2 
			 Haringey 81 27.4 93 32.1 
			 Harrow 94 44.5 73 33.8 
			 Havering 46 20.5 55 24.3 
			 Hillingdon 130 29.7 113 25.5 
			 Hounslow 90 24.2 93 25.1 
			 Kingston upon Thames 37 15.0 23 10.3 
			 Merton 92 37.2 71 30.2 
			 Newham 57 42.9 74 55.2 
			 Redbridge 169 41.5 167 42.6 
			 Richmond upon Thames 21 14.8 23 17.2 
			 Sutton 168 59.8 125 46.1 
			 Waltham Forest 112 20.4 71 12.4 
		
	
	n/a = not applicable
	(33) not available due to low number

Sixth Forms

Mark Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the Answer of 14 June 2005, Official Report, columns 368W and 220W, who the national and local stakeholders are, in addition to the Learning and Skills Council and local education authorities.

Jacqui Smith: Officials have spoken about the establishment of school sixth forms to a very wide range of national and local stakeholders in the context of the 5-year strategy and informally in the normal course of business. These include school, college and work-based learning providers and a variety of representative bodies.

Teachers

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time teachers there were in each of the last five years in each London borough; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: The following tables provide the information requested for January of each year from 1997 to 2004, the latest information available at LEA level.
	
		Number of full-time teachers
		
			  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 City of London 10 20 10 20 10 
			 Camden 1,190 1,240 1,400 1,300 1,260 
			 Greenwich 1,810 1,820 1,870 1,900 1,950 
			 Hackney 1,400 1,370 1,350 1,470 1,400 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 890 910 930 970 1,020 
			 Islington 1,220 1,180 1,310 1,250 1,310 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 580 600 610 640 620 
			 Lambeth 1,400 1,420 1,510 1,470 1,510 
			 Lewisham 1,640 1,730 1,800 1,780 1,740 
			 Southwark 1,710 1,810 1,900 1,940 1,900 
			 Tower Hamlets 1,990 1,980 2,010 2,070 2,060 
			 Wandsworth 1,500 1,530 1,570 1,550 1,570 
			 Westminster 1,090 1,140 1,160 1,160 1,160 
			 Barking and Dagenham 1,400 1,420 1,460 1,510 1,610 
			 Barnet 2,360 2,360 2,480 2,490 2,450 
			 Bexley 1,790 1,870 1,980 1,920 1,940 
			 Brent 1,960 1,940 2,000 2,170 2,190 
			 Bromley 2,150 2,270 2,350 2,290 2,320 
			 Croydon 2,470 2,460 2,530 2,640 2,610 
			 Baling 2,080 2,050 2,130 2,060 2,120 
			 Enfield 2,430 2,480 2,430 2,540 2,590 
			 Haringey 1,720 1,730 1,740 1,750 1,740 
			 Harrow 1,190 1,310 1,310 1,340 1,350 
			 Havering 1,720 1,760 1,840 1,870 1,870 
			 Hillingdon 1,980 2,010 2,060 2,060 2,160 
			 Hounslow 1,780 1,860 1,830 1,840 1,940 
			 Kingston upon Thames 930 950 960 1,050 1,010 
			 Merton 1,030 1,090 1,100 1,120 1,070 
			 Newham 2,270 2,320 2,420 2,460 2,670 
			 Red bridge 2,020 2,170 2,190 2,240 2,280 
			 Richmond upon Thames 860 860 880 940 890 
			 Sutton 1,330 1,380 1,420 1,540 1,500 
			 Waltham Forest 1,910 1,800 1,910 1,760 1,930 
			 London 51,800 52,810 54,440 55,080 55,750 
		
	
	Note:
	Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
	Source:
	Annual survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies.
	
		Full-time equivalent number of part-time teachers
		
			  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 City of London (34)— 10 (34)— (34)— (34)— 
			 Camden 150 200 160 150 160 
			 Greenwich 230 210 210 240 240 
			 Hackney 110 110 120 140 140 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 110 100 80 90 110 
			 Islington 130 120 150 130 140 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 60 60 60 80 70 
			 Lambeth 220 160 160 160 160 
			 Lewisham 240 250 270 270 270 
			 Southwark 140 160 170 150 130 
			 Tower Hamlets 260 200 210 240 230 
			 Wandsworth 190 200 200 200 200 
			 Westminster 100 120 140 150 130 
			 Barking and Dagenham 70 60 60 70 70 
			 Barnet 350 390 340 360 350 
			 Bexley 130 160 180 160 170 
			 Brent 150 170 160 200 160 
			 Bromley 180 270 290 300 300 
			 Croydon 410 360 330 230 280 
			 Ealing 170 170 190 250 190 
			 Enfield 310 190 230 280 300 
			 Haringey 130 120 150 150 170 
			 Harrow 200 180 190 210 210 
			 Havering 170 190 200 190 220 
			 Hillingdon 150 170 170 170 200 
			 Hounslow 160 160 180 170 170 
			 Kingston upon Thames 120 120 110 120 140 
			 Merton 120 120 120 130 120 
			 Newham 80 100 100 110 120 
			 Red bridge 180 210 190 230 230 
			 Richmond upon Thames 170 180 210 150 160 
			 Button 150 150 160 170 200 
			 Waltham Forest 150 140 110 180 150 
			 London 5,500 5,480 5,610 5,840 5,850 
		
	
	(34) Nil or less than 5.
	Note:
	Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
	Source:
	Annual survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies.

Teachers

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many (a) full-time teachers and (b) full-time equivalent teachers and (c) full-time equivalent teaching assistants there were in the London borough of Sutton in (i) 1985 and (ii) the last year for which figures are available.

Jacqui Smith: The following table provides the available information. The numbers of teaching assistants for 1985 are not available—collection of data comparable with those for 2004 did not commence until 1995 and these have been included in the table.
	
		Teacher and teaching assistant numbers, Sutton LEA
		
			  1985 1995 2004 
		
		
			 Teachers
			 Full-time(35) 1,140 1,230 1,440 
			 Full-time equivalent(36) 1,210 1,360 1,700 
			 Teaching assistants 
			 Full-time equivalent n/a 120 370 
		
	
	n/a = not available
	(35) Includes full-time regular qualified teachers.
	(36) Includes the full-time equivalent of all regular teachers.
	Sources:
	Annual survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies (form 618g) for teacher numbers.
	Annual School Census for teaching assistants.

Truancy

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils truanted in each London borough in each of the last five years.

Jacqui Smith: The information requested is shown in the following tables.
	These figures relate to unauthorised absence, this includes all unexplained or unjustified absences, such as lateness, holidays during term time not authorised by the school, absence where reason is not yet established and truancy.
	
		Number of pupils absent for at least one half day due to unauthorised absence, 2000 to 2004: maintained schools in England (excluding special schools and CTCs)
		
			  Primary 
			  2000 2001 2002 
			 Local education authority Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 75 42.4 60 32.8 24 13.5 
			 Camden 2,633 28.3 3,503 37.5 3,596 38.5 
			 Greenwich 6,141 35.6 6,205 35.5 6,050 34.9 
			 Hackney 5,187 34.7 5,422 36.7 5,121 34.5 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 2,588 31.0 1,867 24.1 2,057 25.6 
			 Islington 4,206 32.4 4,265 32.2 4,443 33.9 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1,721 34.9 1,592 27.6 1,663 29.2 
			 Lambeth 5,424 36.6 5,647 35.2 4,489 28.7 
			 Lewisham 7,199 39.7 8,376 42.3 7,440 38.5 
			 Southwark 7,713 42.2 7,912 41.7 8,816 43.9 
			 Tower Hamlets 8,581 49.7 8,779 49.9 8,265 48.0 
			 Wandsworth 3,035 21.1 2,841 19.9 2,680 19.0 
			 Westminster, City of 2,623 35.2 2,481 29.4 2,505 28.7 
			 Barking and Dagenham 5,758 38.2 5,602 36.9 6,124 40.6 
			 Barnet 3,826 17.9 4,070 18.4 4,393 20.0 
			 Bexley 2,286 13.4 1,861 10.2 2,098 11.4 
			 Brent 3,971 21.2 3,198 17.4 3,262 17.4 
			 Bromley 3,090 14.0 2,941 13.1 2,943 13.4 
			 Croydon 4,156 16.2 4,829 18.1 4,704 17.8 
			 Ealing 3,722 17.3 3,142 14.6 2,378 11.1 
			 Enfield 6,444 29.5 6,559 28.8 7,149 30.6 
			 Haringey 6,016 38.7 6,723 39.1 7,210 40.3 
			 Harrow 3,145 17.8 2,782 16.1 2,274 13.5 
			 Havering 1,414 7.9 1,573 8.7 1,727 9.8 
			 Hillingdon 5,292 25.8 5,330 27.8 4,875 24.4 
			 Hounslow 4,213 26.5 4,921 31.9 4,920 31.4 
			 Kingston upon Thames 1,158 12.7 907 9.4 933 9.7 
			 Merton 2,543 20.8 1,875 15.8 1,677 14.1 
			 Newham 12,319 51.0 12,254 48.0 11,584 44.6 
			 Redbridge 4,962 27.4 6,214 31.3 5,402 26.8 
			 Richmond upon Thames 778 7.5 796 7.7 896 8.7 
			 Sutton 1,636 12.7 1,839 14.6 1,794 14.1 
			 Waltham Forest 4,192 23.0 4,286 22.9 3,289 18.1 
		
	
	
		
			  2003 2004 
			  Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 0.0 25 14.2 
			 Camden 2,874 30.8 2,691 28.6 
			 Greenwich 6,674 38.1 6,254 35.9 
			 Hackney 4,943 33.5 5,023 33.9 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,510 19.7 1,752 22.6 
			 Islington 4,716 36.5 3,864 30.5 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1,505 26.4 1,108 19.1 
			 Lambeth 5,348 31.7 4,996 29.9 
			 Lewisham 6,753 34.6 7,151 36.6 
			 Southwark 9,472 46.2 8,753 41.5 
			 Tower Hamlets 8,173 46.8 8,364 47.5 
			 Wandsworth 2,831 19.6 2,794 20.1 
			 Westminster, City of 2,346 26.3 1,889 21.4 
			 Barking and Dagenham 6,265 41.2 5,568 36.6 
			 Barnet 4,318 19.4 5,328 24.1 
			 Bexley 1,967 11.0 2,016 11.3 
			 Brent 3,036 16.2 3,246 17.2 
			 Bromley 3,180 14.5 4,405 20.6 
			 Croydon 5,456 21.2 5,727 22.1 
			 Ealing 2,166 10.1 2,490 11.8 
			 Enfield 7,446 32.0 6,514 27.7 
			 Haringey 7,351 40.2 6,455 35.4 
			 Harrow 1,675 9.7 1,514 8.7 
			 Havering 1,745 10.0 1,732 10.0 
			 Hillingdon 4,370 22.1 4,207 21.7 
			 Hounslow 5,539 35.7 5,373 34.9 
			 Kingston upon Thames 834 8.7 950 10.0 
			 Merton 1,640 14.9 1,355 12.1 
			 Newham 9,962 38.3 7,389 28.7 
			 Redbridge 5,377 26.7 5,745 29.1 
			 Richmond upon Thames 1,150 10.9 1,576 14.5 
			 Sutton 1,594 12.7 1,609 13.0 
			 Waltham Forest 3,500 19.6 3,759 21.3 
		
	
	
		Number of pupils absent for at least one half day due to unauthorised absence, 2000 to 2004: maintained schools in England (excluding special schools and CTCs)
		
			  Secondary 
			  2000 2001 2002 
			 Local education authority Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 (37)— 0 (37)— 0 (37)— 
			 Camden 1,774 20.5 2,093 24.2 1,985 22.8 
			 Greenwich 2,818 22.3 3,345 26.0 3,715 28.6 
			 Hackney 1,945 28.2 2,595 33.5 2,876 35.0 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,268 24.5 1,302 21.0 1,375 22.1 
			 Islington 2,371 33.5 2,739 36.1 2,360 29.9 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 1,080 34.6 1,077 34.4 925 30.0 
			 Lambeth 1,418 19.9 1,674 23.4 1,746 24.3 
			 Lewisham 4,224 38.8 4,595 40.8 4,474 43.4 
			 Southwark 2,581 25.5 2,566 24.4 3,311 30.8 
			 Tower Hamlets 5,567 42.2 5,592 41.5 5,831 42.9 
			 Wandsworth 1,910 21.3 2,155 24.1 2,218 24.9 
			 Westminster, City of 3,066 43.5 1,799 25.2 2,331 32.6 
			 Barking and Dagenham 2,804 28.7 3,181 31.7 3,614 34.5 
			 Barnet 2,601 15.2 3,148 17.6 3,939 22.1 
			 Bexley 2,546 17.0 3,224 20.6 3,361 21.0 
			 Brent 1,875 15.4 1,930 15.6 1,874 15.0 
			 Bromley 2,030 11.8 3,519 19.9 3,188 17.6 
			 Croydon 2,323 14.7 2,314 13.5 2,688 15.2 
			 Ealing 2,062 15.4 2,804 20.7 2,545 18.5 
			 Enfield 5,509 31.5 6,238 35.2 5,864 32.9 
			 Haringey 2,697 26.3 2,786 30.0 4,150 37.5 
			 Harrow 862 9.7 1,111 12.2 1,097 11.9 
			 Havering 1,753 11.9 2,112 14.0 2,101 13.7 
			 Hillingdon 3,434 24.8 3,125 22.1 3,541 23.8 
			 Hounslow 1,866 13.6 1,681 12.1 2,494 18.2 
			 Kingston upon Thames 1,280 17.9 997 13.6 1,143 15.3 
			 Merton 2,168 28.5 2,156 28.9 2,106 29.2 
			 Newham 7,622 43.7 7,831 44.5 7,363 41.5 
			 Redbridge 1,654 10.8 2,072 13.7 2,800 18.2 
			 Richmond upon Thames 1,478 19.2 2,332 30.1 2,700 35.7 
			 Sutton 1,026 8.8 1,512 12.4 2,106 17.0 
			 Waltham Forest 3,476 27.5 3,715 28.9 3,749 28.5 
		
	
	
		
			  2003 2004 
			 Local education authority Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age Number absent As percentage of pupils of compulsory school age 
		
		
			 London, City of 0 (37)— 0 (37)— 
			 Camden 1,755 23.2 1,628 21.6 
			 Greenwich 4,426 33.5 4,913 36.9 
			 Hackney 2,112 26.2 2,727 37.6 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 1,492 23.7 1,580 25.6 
			 Islington 2,811 35.2 2,876 36.1 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 890 28.8 568 18.3 
			 Lambeth 1,685 23.2 870 11.5 
			 Lewisham 4,137 36.6 5,340 47.2 
			 Southwark 3,897 35.6 2,831 25.2 
			 Tower Hamlets 6,501 48.2 6,186 45.6 
			 Wandsworth 2,322 25.7 1,705 21.6 
			 Westminster, City of 2,992 41.4 3,302 44.7 
			 Barking and Dagenham 3,851 35.4 4,019 35.5 
			 Barnet 3,324 18.5 4,090 23.4 
			 Bexley 2,944 18.8 3,556 21.1 
			 Brent 2,705 19.8 2,240 16.1 
			 Bromley 4,302 23.8 3,428 18.7 
			 Croydon 4,733 26.2 3,931 21.9 
			 Ealing 2,279 16.3 2,990 21.3 
			 Enfield 6,443 35.2 8,062 42.7 
			 Haringey 4,666 41.7 4,325 38.2 
			 Harrow 1,125 12.1 1,100 11.8 
			 Havering 1,993 12.8 2,237 14.2 
			 Hillingdon 4,729 31.4 4,992 31.9 
			 Hounslow 2,317 16.5 3,074 22.0 
			 Kingston upon Thames 845 11.1 724 10.8 
			 Merton 2,295 27.8 2,073 25.2 
			 Newham 6,969 38.3 6,367 35.0 
			 Redbridge 2,630 16.6 4,203 26.3 
			 Richmond upon Thames 2,419 31.8 2,737 35.9 
			 Sutton 1,938 15.1 2,518 19.2 
			 Waltham Forest 3,316 24.9 5,012 36.6 
		
	
	(37) Not applicable

University Admissions

Mark Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department has taken regarding post-qualification application to university for undergraduate courses.

Bill Rammell: In September 2004, the Secretary of State announced that work would begin to look at the options for implementing a system of post-qualification application to higher education. Officials have been taking this work forward, consulting widely with interested parties and engaging with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government, of course, respects the autonomy of the HE sector and is absolutely clear that admissions policies are entirely the responsibility of HE institutions. Later this year, we plan to conduct a formal public consultation exercise to seek views on possible reforms to applications procedures.

Baha'i Cemetery

Cheryl Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on reports of the destruction of the Bahá'í cemetery in Yazd in February and the desecration of a Bahá'í corpse; and what assessment his Department has made of the official investigations into these crimes.

Cheryl Gillan: We have received reports that a Bahá'í cemetery in Yazd was destroyed. Cars were said to have been driven over graves, leaving human remains exposed. We condemn any such action unreservedly. We are not aware of an official investigation.
	We have made clear to the Iranian authorities our serious concern about the situation of the Bahá'í community in Iran. We have also encouraged the EU to take action, doing so most recently on 21 June. We will make support for human rights a priority in the EU's relations with Iran during the UK's presidency of the EU.

British Embassies

James McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new British embassies have been opened since 1997.

Jack Straw: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has opened 10 Embassies and High Commissions since 1997. The following table provides further details. In some cases the mission has been opened previously, but not formally as an Embassy or High Commission. The previous status of such missions is shown in the table.
	
		Embassies and high commissions opened since 1997
		
			 Mission Previous status 
		
		
			 2000–01  
			 Tripoli Mission originally represented by British Interests Section of the Italian Embassy. 
			   
			 2001–02  
			 Pyongyang  
			 Asmara Previously opened with local staff only. 
			 Bamako Previously opened with local staff only. 
			 Dushanbe  
			 Kabul  
			   
			 2002–03  
			 Conakry Previously opened with local staff only. 
			 Dili Mission originally opened as mission to 
			 Chisinau the UN in Jakarta 
			   
			 2004–05  
			 Baghdad  
		
	
	In reply to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in answer to a similar written parliamentary question on 11 February 2003, Official Report, column 722W, I stated incorrectly that our Embassy in Asmara opened in financial year 2000–01. This should have read 2001–02, as shown in the table. I would like to apologise for the error.

Charlotte Wilson

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the killing in Burundi in December 2000 during which Charlotte Wilson, a British national, was killed, constitutes a war crime prosecutable via the International Criminal Court; and if he will make a statement.

Ian Pearson: It is possible that the attack in which Charlotte Wilson and many others were murdered could constitute a "war crime" as defined under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the ICC could not have jurisdiction in this case as the crime pre-dates the coming into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002. It is impossible to refer crimes which took place before this date to the ICC.
	Whether to define this attack as a "war crime" can only be decided upon by a competent court. The UK Government will continue to press the Burundian authorities to investigate this crime fully and bring Charlotte Wilson's killers to justice.

Computer Crime

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases of computer (a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department recorded in each year since 2001–02; and for each year on how many occasions computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside his Department.

Jack Straw: There is no evidence of any successful hacking attacks being mounted against the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since 2002 nor is there any evidence of computer based fraud.
	Details of recorded thefts of computers are as follows:
	
		
			  Laptops Personal computers 
		
		
			 2001–02(38) — — 
			 2002–03 4 0 
			 2003–04 2 0 
			 2004–05 3 2 
		
	
	(38) No records exist for this period

Radiological Weapons (Public Education)

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken in response to the recommendation of the Report of the UN Secretary General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A more secure world: Our shared responsibility, that the public should be educated on the consequences of radiological weapons.

Kim Howells: The Government takes seriously its responsibility to prepare the public for emergencies, but is careful not to raise the profile of any specific risk disproportionately. General guidance on the steps the public can take to prepare for, and respond to, any major emergency is available on the preparing for emergencies website: (wwvv.preparingforemergencies.gov.uk). More detailed information is also available on the effects of radiological material at: (www.mi5.gov.uk. and wmv.hpa.org.uk).
	The emergency services will always issue specific advice at the time of an incident, including any incident involving release of a radiological material.

Bus Shelters

Nigel Dodds: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on the erection of bus shelters in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; and how much has been spent on (a) repairing and (b) replacing such shelters in each year since 2000.

Shaun Woodward: The Chief Executive of Roads Service (Dr. Malcom McKibbin) has been asked to write to the hon. Gentleman.
	Letter from Dr. Malcom McKibbin to Mr. Nigel Dodds dated June 2005
	You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question: "how much has been spent on the erection of bus shelters in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; and how much has been spent on (a) repairing and (b) replacing such shelters in each year since 2000."
	I have been asked to reply as this issue falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of Roads Service.
	You may be aware that, in January 2001, roads service and most district councils entered into a 15-year contract with bus shelter provider Adshel, for the provision of approximately 1500 bus shelters throughout the council areas. The provision and maintenance of these shelters are funded by Adshel through advertising revenue, and are therefore provided at no cost to the Department. The Department has no knowledge of the costs incurred by Adshel in carrying out their contractual commitments.
	District councils are still permitted to provide additional bus shelters at their own expense, however, Adshel have the sole advertising rights, and Translink is also permitted to erect bus shelters at their own expense under Permitted Development Rights.
	In addition, roads service has a small budget of approximately £1000 per year to maintain the limited number of bus shelters provided by the Department prior to the commencement of the Adshel contract. However, we have not carried out any shelter replacements since 2000.
	I hope this information is helpful.

Firearm Certificates

Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average time taken for firearm certificate applications to be processed was in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available.

Shaun Woodward: The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland has released the following information.
	
		Average length of time taken to process an application for a firearm certificate
		
			  Weeks 
		
		
			 2004  
			 July (39)4 
			 August (39)4 
			 September (39)4 
			 October (39)4 
			 November (39)4 
			 December (39)(40)8 
			   
			 2005  
			 January (39)(40)8 
			 February 14 
			 March 14 
			 April 14 
			 May 14 
			 June 14 
		
	
	(39) Does not reflect processing time by local police.
	(40) Reflects additional time needed for staff training and other preparatory work to facilitate introduction of new computerised licensing system.

Computer-related Offences

Paul Burstow: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many cases of computer (a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft her Department recorded in each year since 2001–02; and for each year, on how many occasions computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside her Department.

Bridget Prentice: The number of cases of computer hacking, fraud and theft recorded by the Lord Chancellor's Department and Department for Constitutional Affairs in each year since 2001–02 is as follows:
	
		2001–02
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 (a) Hacking 2 
			 (b) Fraud 0 
			 (c) Theft 25 
		
	
	Illegal access by computer hackers in 2001–02 was (i) within the Department 1; (ii) outside the Department 1. Neither of the hacking incidents caused damage to the Departmental computer systems.
	
		2002–03
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 (a) Hacking 0 
			 (b) Fraud 0 
			 (c) Theft 25 
		
	
	There was no reported illegal access by internal or external computer hackers in 2002–03.
	
		2003–04
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 (a) Hacking 0 
			 (b) Fraud 0 
			 (c) Theft 33 
		
	
	There was no reported illegal access by internal or external computer hackers in 2003–04.
	
		2004–05
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 (a) Hacking 0 
			 (b) Fraud 0 
			 (c) Theft 35 
		
	
	There was no reported illegal access by internal or external computer hackers in 2004–05.

Judges (Sexual Offences Training)

Vera Baird: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs on how many rape appeals in 2004 there was a tribunal which did not contain a judge who had been on the serious sexual offences seminar.

Harriet Harman: This question relates to a matter that is the responsibility of the judiciary. The Lord Chief Justice informs me that the information cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

Jury Service

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if she will commission research to assess the ability of juries to understand complex trials.

Harriet Harman: My Department has no plans at the moment to conduct research into the deliberations and requirements of juries. In January 2005 my Department published a Consultation Paper—"Jury Research and Impropriety"—and the relevant consultation period finished on 15 April. The responses are currently being analysed and an announcement of the Government's intentions will be made in due course.

Ambulance Services

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average response time was to an emergency call to the ambulance service in each London borough in each year since 1997.

Jane Kennedy: This information is not collected centrally in the format requested. Data on response times for London Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust is shown in the tables.
	Data is available only from 2000–01 which is the year London Ambulance Service NHS Trust introduced prioritisation.
	Further information can be found in the statistical bulletin, "Ambulance services, England: 2004–05". Copies are available in the Library and on the Department's website at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/ll/36/79/04113679.pdf
	
		Percentage of category A calls responded within eight minutes
		
			  London 
		
		
			 1997–98 n/a 
			 1998–99 n/a 
			 1999–2000 n/a 
			 2000–01 41.8 
			 2001–02 57.2 
			 2002–03 69.1 
			 2003–04 76.0 
			 2004–05 76.6 
		
	
	n/a = not available.
	
		Percentage of category A calls responded within 14 to 19 minutes
		
			  London 
		
		
			 1997–98 n/a 
			 1998–99 n/a 
			 1999–2000 n/a 
			 2000–01 83.3 
			 2001–02 85.7 
			 2002–03 88.6 
			 2003–04 89.6 
			 2004–05 95.9 
		
	
	n/a = not available.
	
		Percentage of category B/C calls responded within 14 to 19 minutes
		
			  London 
		
		
			 1997–98 n/a 
			 1998–99 n/a 
			 1999–2000 n/a 
			 2000–01 79.7 
			 2001–02 78.5 
			 2002–03 79.2 
			 2003–04 77.9 
			 2004–05 81.2 
		
	
	n/a = not available.
	
		Percentage of urgent journeys with arrival time not more than 15 minutes late
		
			  London 
		
		
			 1997–98 79.3 
			 1998–99 69.4 
			 1999–2000 61.0 
			 2000–01 50.1 
			 2001–02 48.4 
			 2002–03 46.7 
			 2003–04 50.0 
			 2004–05 58.0

Appraisals (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence)

Dai Havard: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) medical devices and (b) pharmaceutical products were submitted for appraisal to the (i) National Institute for Clinical Excellence in (A) 2003 and (B) 2004 and (ii) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2005.

Jane Kennedy: Details of the appraisal topics referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in 2003 and 2004 and to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in 2005 are as follows.
	In 2003, two work programmes were referred:
	Wave 8—April 2003
	Pharmaceuticals
	Hormonal treatments for early breast cancer
	Imatinib (Glivec) for gastro-intenstinal stromal tumours
	Gefitinib (Iressa) for non-small cell lung cancer
	Statins for prevention of coronary events
	Memantine (Ebixa) for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease
	New pharmaceutical treatments for non-Alzheimer dementias
	New treatments for venous leg ulcers
	New treatments for diabetic foot ulcers
	Omalizumab (Xolair) for uncontrolled asthma
	Drotecogin (Xigris) and afelimomab (Segard) for severe sepsis
	New treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis
	Pimecrolimus (Elidel) and tacrolimus (Protopic) for atopic dermatitis (eczema)
	Topical steroids in atopic dermatitis (eczema)
	Devices
	Dual chamber pacing
	Other
	Parent training programmes, for treatment and prevention of conduct disorder
	Wave 9—October 2003
	Pharmaceuticals
	Adefovir dipivoxil for chronic hepatitis B
	Erythropoetin ion chemotherapy-induced anaemia
	Etanercept and infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis
	Ximelagatran for the treatment of venous thromboembolism
	Ximelagatran for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation
	Nesiritide for acute decompensated heart failure
	Prasterone for systemic lupus erythematosus
	Other
	Fallers clinics
	HealOzone for tooth decay
	Thrombophilia screening
	2004
	Wave 10—June 2004
	Pharmaceuticals
	Atrasentan for hormone refractory prostate cancer
	Cetuximab for head and neck cancer
	Pemetrexed disodium in the treatment of mesothelioma
	Oxaliplatin, irinotecan and capecitabine as adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer
	Docetaxel for hormone-refractory prostate cancer
	Carmustine implants (Gliadel Wafers) for newly diagnosed high grade glioma
	Methadone and Bupenorphine as opiate substitutes
	Naltrexone as a treatment for relapse prevention
	Pegaptanib for age-related macular degeneration
	Natalizumab for multiple sclerosis
	Adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis
	Lerdelimumab (CAT-152) for prevention of scarring after glaucoma filtration surgery
	Strontum ranelate for osteoporosis
	Inhaled insulin
	Corticosteroids for asthma
	Devices
	Biventricular pacing (cardiac resynchronisation) for heart failure
	Wave 11—April 2005
	Pharmaceuticals
	Gemcitabine for breast cancer
	Docetaxal and paclitaxel for the treatment of early breast cancer
	Rituximab for the treatment of low grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
	Erlotinib and permetrexed for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer
	Cinacalcet HCI for hyperparathyroidism
	Ezetimibe for hypercholesteremia
	Drugs for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension
	Other
	Stapled haemorrhoidectomy for the treatment of haemorrhoids

Community Pharmacies

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community pharmacies in each London borough (a) opened and (b) closed in each year since 2000–01; and if she will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: Information on the number of community pharmacies opened and closed by London borough is not centrally collected. However, information is available by health authority (HA) prior to 2002 and from 2002, by primary care trust (PCT).
	Table 1 shows the number of community pharmacies by London HA prior to 2002 and table 2 shows the number of community pharmacies by London PCTs from 2002 onwards.
	
		Table 1: By London HA—2000–01 to 2001–02
		
			   Number of community pharmacies 2000–01 Number of community pharmacies 2001–02 
			 HA Total number of community pharmacies Opened Closed Opened Closed 
		
		
			 Brent and Harrow 129 0 1 0 1 
			 Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow 161 0 3 0 2 
			 Hillingdon 62 0 0 0 0 
			 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster 148 0 2 0 0 
			 Barnet, Enfield and Haringey 194 0 0 0 1 
			 Camden and Islington 111 0 0 0 0 
			 Barking and Havering 79 0 0 0 1 
			 East London and City 166 0 1 0 1 
			 Redbridge and Waltham Forest 108 0 1 0 0 
			 Bexley Bromley and Greenwich 151 0 0 0 0 
			 Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham 174 0 2 0 0 
			 Croydon 68 0 1 0 0 
			 Kingston and Richmond 75 0 1 0 0 
			 Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth 143 0 0 0 2 
		
	
	Note:
	Some HAs served more than one London borough.
	
		Table 2: By London PCT—2002–03 to 2003–04
		
			   Number of community pharmacies 2002–03 Number of community pharmacies 2003–04 
			 PCT Number of pharmacies on establishment of PCTs in 2002 Opened Closed Opened Closed 
		
		
			 Brent Teaching 71 0 0 0 0 
			 Ealing 69 0 0 1 0 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 41 0 0 0 1 
			 Harrow 57 0 0 0 0 
			 Hillingdon 62 0 0 0 0 
			 Hounslow 50 0 0 0 0 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 41 0 0 0 0 
			 Westminster 106 0 0 0 1 
			 Barnet 78 0 0 1 0 
			 Camden 63 0 0 0 0 
			 Islington 47 0 0 0 0 
			 Enfield 59 0 0 0 0 
			 Haringey 57 0 0 0 1 
			 Barking and Dagenham 36 0 0 0 1 
			 City and Hackney 65 0 0 0 0 
			 Havering 43 0 0 0 0 
			 Newham 60 0 0 0 0 
			 Redbridge(41) 39 0 0 11 0 
			 Tower Hamlets 43 0 0 0 1 
			 Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone(42) 46 0 46 — — 
			 Waltham Forest(43) — — — 58 0 
			 Bexley 47 0 0 0 1 
			 Bromley 57 0 0 0 0 
			 Greenwich 47 0 0 1 0 
			 Lambeth 59 0 0 0 1 
			 Lewisham 52 0 0 0 0 
			 Southwark 63 0 0 0 0 
			 Croydon 68 0 0 0 0 
			 Kingston 29 0 0 0 0 
			 Richmond and Twickenham 45 0 0 0 0 
			 Sutton and Merton 77 0 0 0 0 
			 Wandsworth 65 0 0 2 0 
		
	
	(41) Redbridge PCT previously sat in Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA and the total number of pharmacies for the HA as at 2001–02 was 108. In 2002, Redbridge PCT was established and initially had had 39 pharmacies, increasing by 11 with the establishing of Waltham Forest PCT in 2003, which had 58 pharmacies. It is useful to note that the combined figure of community pharmacies for both Redbridge and Waltham Forest PCTs in 2003–04 is equal to that of the previous HA total of 108.
	(42) Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone PCT no longer exists.
	(43) Newly established PCT on 1 April 2003.

Dentistry

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were registered with an NHS dentist in the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in each of the last five years; and what percentage of the population that represented in each year.

Rosie Winterton: The information requested is shown in the table.
	
		Patients registered with a national health service dentist in Newcastle primary care trust as at 30 September
		
			  Number of patients registered Percentage of population registered with a dentist 
		
		
			 2000 n/a n/a 
			 2001 141,552 53 
			 2002 148,039 56 
			 2003 144,531 54 
			 2004(40) 148,691 56 
		
	
	n/a = not available.
	1 2004 population data not available at this level—2003 data used.
	Sources:
	Dental Practice Board and Office for National Statistics.

Hospital-acquired Infections

Simon Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role community matrons play in minimising MRSA in residential care and nursing homes; and if she will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: holding answer 22 June 2005
	The "Matron's Charter" launched in October 2004, reinforced the matron's role by setting out 10 key commitments to cleanliness, aimed at all staff in the national health service. Although the focus was on care in the hospital setting, many of the principles espoused are applicable across the whole spectrum of health care.
	Residential care and nursing homes are not required to have community matrons on staff complements but may receive advice from community matrons on clinical issues.
	The care homes regulations set out requirements for hygiene and infection control and care home providers are required to ensure that at all times suitably qualified, competent and experienced staff are working in the care home. These persons should receive training appropriate to their work and infection control is detailed in the induction standards set by Skills for Care and should be used by all new staff and those taking national vocational qualifications.

Hospital-acquired Infections

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has undertaken into possible links between use of agency and bank nursing staff within the NHS and prevalence of MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections.

Jane Kennedy: The Department has conducted initial research to examine the links between the use of temporary nursing staff, hospital cleanliness and "methicillin resistant" Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). However, the work is still in progress and results are not yet available.

Mental Health Services

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what arrangements are in place to ensure that people aged 65 years or over with mental health issues have access to (a) bereavement counselling, (b) assertive outreach teams, (c) crisis resolution teams and (d) community mental health teams;
	(2)  what reasons older people under the care of assertive outreach teams cease to receive the service when they reach of the age of 65.

Rosie Winterton: The needs of older people with mental health problems are the focus of a standard in the national service framework for older people (2001), which is designed to ensure that the right services are there to meet the needs of older people with mental health problems whether they live at home, in residential care or are being cared for in hospital. Where an older person has severe mental illness due to a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, they will require the packages of care set out in the national service framework for mental health, and the same standards should apply as for working age adults. For these people care should be provided within the framework of the care programme approach. Bereavement counselling services should be accessible by people of any age through referral by a general practitioner.
	The Department's guidance on functionalised community teams, "Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide (2001)", explains that such services are commonly for adults aged up to 65 years. This guidance specifies that for crisis resolution teams there should be flexibility in every locality to decide to treat those who fall outside this age group where appropriate. For assertive outreach teams, the same guidance states that the boundaries between different health care services should be flexible to respond to different needs. The "Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide" also makes clear that as long as there is evidence of benefit, assertive outreach can continue indefinitely. The "Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide for Community Mental Health Teams (2002)" requires age limits to be determined in line with locally agreed protocols for transitions from adolescent to adult and adult to older adult services.

Mental Health Services

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria were used to set the priorities for the National Service Framework for Mental Health, with particular reference to the age of sufferers; and what arrangements are in place to ensure that people with mental health problems continue to have access to services once they reach 65 years.

Rosie Winterton: The national service framework for mental health (1999) concentrates on the mental health needs of working age adults up to 65 and touches on the needs of children and young people, highlighting areas where services for children and adults interact, for example the interface between services for 16 to 18-year-olds, and the needs of children with a mentally ill parent.
	The needs of children and adolescents with mental health problems are the focus of a standard in the children's national service framework which gives guidance on what is envisaged in a comprehensive child and adolescent mental health service.
	The needs of older people with mental health problems are the focus of a standard in the national service framework for older people (2001), which is designed to ensure that the right services are there to meet the needs of older people with mental health problems whether they live at home, in residential care or are being cared for in hospital. Where an older person has severe mental illness due to a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, they will require the packages of care set out in the national service framework for mental health, and the same standards should apply as for working age adults. For these people care should be provided within the framework of the care programme approach.
	The Department's guidance on the care programme approach, "Effective Care Co-ordination in Mental Health Services" (1999), requires services to have in place clearly identified plans and protocols for meeting the needs of younger and older people moving from one service to another. The priorities and planning framework for the national health service 2003–06 includes a target to ensure that protocols are in place across all health and social care systems for the care and management of older people with mental health problems.
	The annual performance ratings of mental health trusts carried out by the Healthcare Commission in 2004 and by the Commission for Health Improvement in 2003 employed performance indicators on the availability of clear protocols for transition between children's, adults' and older people's mental health services.

Missed Appointments (Lancashire)

Lindsay Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients failed to turn up for (a) general practitioner and (b) hospital appointments in (i) Chorley and (ii) Lancashire in 2004–05.

Liam Byrne: The total number of missed out-patient appointments for the year 2004–05 in England was 5,707,288, or 11.3 per cent. Data for individual national health service trusts are available in the Library.
	The Department does not collect data on the number of missed general practice appointments, but there is some evidence to suggest the number of missed appointments are falling.

NHS Budget

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her estimate is of the annual change in the NHS budget required to meet the higher cost associated with (a) an ageing population and (b) improved health care technology; and if she will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: In the report "Securing our long term health: taking a long term view", Derek Wanless reported that the impact of ageing on future health expenditure is likely to be small compared with other cost drivers. The report also states that medical technology, including drugs and equipment, would contribute two to three percentage points to the annual rate of growth in health spending in the future, compared to an average of two percentage points a year over the previous 20 years.

NHS Staff

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time equivalent (a) administrative staff and (b) temporary staff have been employed at (i) Whittington hospital, (ii) Royal Free hospital Hampstead, (iii) North Middlesex university hospital and (iv) Haringey teaching primary care trust St. Ann's hospital in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: The information requested is shown in the table. St Ann's hospital is part of the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust.
	
		National health service hospital and community health services: Total clerical and administrative staff in Haringey teaching primary care trust area by contractual term as at 30 September each specified year Full-time equivalent
		
			   2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 Total administrative staff  1,326 1,595 1,794 1,979 2,075 
			
			 Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust RRP n/a 176 249 278 352 
			 Haringey PCT 5C9 n/a 114 114 139 161 
			 North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust RAP 291 294 327 391 359 
			 Royal Free NHS Trust RAL 722 700 778 830 860 
			 Whittington Hospital NHS Trust RKE 312 311 326 341 342 
		
	
	n/a = not applicable
	Note:
	Full-time equivalent figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.
	Source:
	Health and Social Care Information Centre Non-Medical Workforce Census.

NHS Staff

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what her estimate is of the total cost of suspending NHS staff in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the average cost was of suspending one member of (a) medical staff and (b) non-medical clinical staff per annum for the most recent period for which figures are available;
	(2)  how many (a) medical and (b) non-medical clinical staff in the NHS have been (i) formally suspended and (ii) informally suspended from work in each year since 1997; and what steps she is taking to ensure that suspensions that occur are unavoidable;
	(3)  what the average length of time of suspensions from the NHS for (a) medical and (b) non-medical clinical staff was in the last year for which figures are available.

Liam Byrne: The information requested on formal and informal suspensions of medical and non-medical clinical staff and the length of those suspensions and their cost is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	The National Audit Office provided information on clinical staff excluded from work in 2001 and 2002 in its report, "The Management of Suspensions of Clinical Staff in NHS Hospital and Ambulance Trusts in England", which is available in the Library.
	The most recent data collect by the National Clinical Assessment Service, now part of the National Patient Safety Agency, shows that, in the fourth quarter of 2004, 19 doctors were suspended for six months or more.

Patient Care (Private Companies)

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  if she will make a statement on the monitoring that is undertaken by her Department of the safety and quality of patient care provided by private companies delivering out of hours primary care services;
	(2)  how many adverse incidents have been recorded for GP out-of-hours services in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement;
	(3)  if she will make a statement on the monitoring undertaken by her Department of the development of community out-of-hours services under the new GP contract.

Liam Byrne: The Department set quality requirements that came into effect from 1 January 2005. These set the minimum standards for the delivery of out-of-hours care. In line with "Shifting the Balance of Power", it is for primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, not the Department, to monitor out-of-hours services against these quality requirements and, where necessary, take action in cases of adverse incidents or complaints.

West Hertfordshire Hospitals Trust

James Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of (a) the financial situation of the West Herts Hospitals Trust, (b) the implications for clinical services of its financial situation and (c) proposals for ward closures at Watford hospitals; what plans she has to provide additional (i) financial and (ii) other support to the Trust; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: In line with "Shifting The Balance Of Power" strategic health authorities (SHAs) are responsible for the financial performance management of individual health organisations within their health economy. It is the responsibility of SHAs to deliver both overall financial balance for their local health communities and to ensure each and every body achieves financial balance.
	I am advised that the West Hertfordshire Hospital National Health Service Trust is working with primary care trusts to agree a recovery plan to ensure that it delivers national targets, meets the national standards for high quality health care and achieves its statutory duties. Decisions on how this is best delivered within the West Hertfordshire health and social care system is a local decision and thus Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire SHA is working with the local NHS to support them in this process and ensure that there is the management capacity to produce and deliver the recovery plan.
	I am also assured that the West Hertfordshire NHS Trust will continue to work hard to meet the standards laid down by the Healthcare Commission and that patient care will not be compromised.

Advantage West Midlands

Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the projects submitted by the Rover Task Force to (a) Advantage West Midlands and (b) the Government Office of the West Midlands for possible funding; and how much has been requested to support each project.

Ian Pearson: Advantage West Midlands (AWM) is the vehicle which co-ordinates the funding directed by the MG Rover Task Force (MGRTF). The funding package is administered by other regional agencies such as the Learning and Skills Councils and Government Office for the West Midlands (GOWM).
	To date, the following requests have been made by the MGRTF to AWM:
	£250,000 to reopen and man the MG Rover Distribution Centres to allow suppliers to recover the consignment stocks they own;
	£150,000 to retain for 12 weeks a team of MGR Human Resources staff, principally to prepare records of employment for all former workers for use when seeking jobs;
	£202,000 to pay the wages of apprentices while alternative employment for them is Found;
	£40,000 to support for a major jobs fair in Birmingham.
	The MGRTF has also approved support of £10 million for the Advantage Transition Bridge Fund.
	The MGRTF has also approved proposals from regional agencies for funding which includes:
	Support for suppliers to retain employees. £3.7 million has been committed to date and is kept under review by the Task Force;
	Establishment of a "Manufacturing Hub" to try to ensure engineering manufacturing skills are not lost to the region by placing workers with such skills into posts requiring such skills and by incentivising businesses to recruit them;
	Includes post-recruitment retraining, and assistance with long-distance commuting. Up to a maximum of £3.6 million (dependent on take-up);
	Funding for former employees who wish to take up full-time vocational training (cash limited). Up to a maximum of £600,000.
	Funding to support potential start-up businesses amongst former employees. Up to a maximum of £900,000.
	Government Office for the West Midlands has received funding requests from the following projects to support the work of the MGRTF.
	
		
			 Project name ERDF/ESF requested 
		
		
			 Accelerate Extension £4.94 million 
			 Extension Cluster Action Plan £l million 
			 Wage Subsidy Scheme £5 million ESF 
			 Grants for R and D Extension £1.5 million 
			 ESF Over 50s £1.50 million 
			 Road Infrastructure £5.1 million 
			 Regional Repositioning (now called 'Marketing the Region') £1.7 million 
			 High Tech Corridor Support £778,000 
			 Community Network SW £750,000 
			 Longbridge Masterplanning £750,000 
			 SME Internationalisation Extension Up to £1.4 million 
			 Sustainable A38 regeneration employment opportunities £500,000 
			 Innovation Networks Extension £430, 000 
		
	
	A number of projects are still under development by the MG Rover Task Force and regional partners.

Export Credits Guarantee Department

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Government have allocated to the Export Credits Guarantee Department in each of the last five years.

Ian Pearson: The cash generated for/(cash cost to) the Exchequer as a result of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's (ECGD's) operating activities, as published in schedule 4 to its Resource Accounts, in each of the last five years, is summarised in the following table. Figures in brackets represent Exchequer cash used to fund ECGD's Operating Activities; figures without brackets represent net cash receipts for the Exchequer, which include recoveries of past claims, interest paid by debtors in respect of those claims and premiums received in respect of ECGD's underwriting activities:
	
		
			  £ million 
			  Cash generated/(used) 
		
		
			 1999–2000 (107.1) 
			 2000–01 (59.8) 
			 2001–02 24.3 
			 2002–03 327.8 
			 2003–04 546.7